Summary of findings 4. Intervention versus control for liver transplantation (red cell or whole blood allogeneic transfusion).
| Intervention versus control for liver transplantation | ||||||
| Patient or population: Patients with liver transplantation. Settings: Transplantation centre. Intervention: Intervention versus control. | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Intervention versus control | |||||
| Red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ Aprotinin versus control | The mean red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ aprotinin versus control in the intervention groups was 0.61 standard deviations lower (0.82 to 0.40 lower) | 375 (8 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | SMD ‐0.61 (‐0.82 to ‐0.40) | ||
| Red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ Tranexamic acid versus control | The mean red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ tranexamic acid versus control in the intervention groups was 0.27 standard deviations lower (0.59 lower to 0.06 higher) | 159 (4 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3,4 | SMD ‐0.27 (‐0.59 to 0.06) | ||
| Red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) versus control | The mean red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) versus control in the intervention groups was 0.05 standard deviations higher (0.32 lower to 0.23 higher) | 221 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3,4 | SMD 0.05 (‐0.32 to 0.23) | ||
| Red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ Thromboelastography versus control | The mean red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ thromboelastography versus control in the intervention groups was 0.73 standard deviations lower (1.69 lower to 0.24 higher) | 62 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 | SMD ‐0.73 (‐1.69 to 0.24) | ||
| Red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ Tranexamic acid versus aprotinin | The mean red cell or whole blood transfusion ‐ tranexamic acid versus aprotinin in the intervention groups was 0.09 standard deviations lower (0.36 lower to 0.19 higher) | 198 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3,4 | SMD ‐0.09 (‐0.36 to 0.19) | ||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 All trials were at high risk of bias. 2 High heterogeneity. 3 Funnel plots could not be performed for any of the outcomes. 4 Sample size was less than 400 patients in both groups put together.