Open Access
J Extra Corpor Technol
Volume 52, Number 2, June 2020
Page(s) 126 - 134
Published online 15 June 2020
  1. Shander A, Bracey AWJ, Goodnough LT, et al. Patient blood management as standard of care. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:1051–3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chung KW, Basavaraju SV, Mu Y, et al. Declining blood collection and utilization in the United States. Transfusion. 2016;56:2184–92. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ellingson KD, Sapiano MRP, Haass KA, et al. Continued decline in blood collection and transfusion in the United States–2015. Transfusion. 2017;57(Suppl 2):1588–98. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Vonk ABA, Meesters MI, van Dijk WB Ten-year patterns in blood product utilization during cardiothoracic surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass in a tertiary hospital. Transfusion. 2014;54:2608–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennett-Guerrero E, Zhao Y, O’Brien SM, et al. Variation in use of blood transfusion in coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 2010;304:1568–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brouwers C, Hooftman B, Vonk S, et al. Benchmarking the use of blood products in cardiac surgery to stimulate awareness of transfusion behaviour: Results from a four-year longitudinal study V. Neth Heart J. 2017;25:207–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goodnough LT, Murphy M Do liberal blood transfusions cause more harm than good? BMJ. 2015;249:g6897. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hofmann A, Farmer S Key role of benchmarking processes in PBM. In: Gombotz H, Zacharowski K, Spahn DR, eds. Patient Blood Management. Stuttgart Germany: Thieme Verlag KG; 2016:264. [Google Scholar]
  9. Stone GW, Clayton TC, Mehran R, et al. Impact of major bleeding and blood transfusions after cardiac surgery: Analysis from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY (ACUITY) trial. Am Heart J. 2012;163:522–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Shander A, Goodnough LT Blood transfusion as a quality indicator in cardiac surgery. JAMA. 2010;304:1610–1. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ioannidis JPA Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002049. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, et al. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One. 2014;9:e114023. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldacre B How to get all trials reported: Audit, better data, and individual accountability. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001821. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tompson AC, Petit-Zeman S, Goldacre B, et al. Getting our house in order: An audit of the registration and publication of clinical trials supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e009285. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldacre B, Lane S, Mahtani KR, et al. Pharmaceutical companies' policies on access to trial data, results, and methods: Audit study. BMJ. 2017;358:j3334. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bruckner T Clinical Trial Transparency: A Guide for Policy Makers. Bristol, United Kingdom: Transparency International UK; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  17. Tunis SR, Clarke M, Gorst SL, et al. Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2016;5:193–205. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. National Blood Authority. Patient Blood Management Guideline: Module 2 – Perioperative. Canberra, Australia: National Blood Authority; 2012:104. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wilke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P Measuring treatment impact: A review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Contr Clin Trials. 2004;25:535–52. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hammer GP, du Prel JB, Blettner M Avoiding bias in observational studies: Part 8 in a series of articles on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009;106:664–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: A consensus report from the bleeding academic research consortium. Circulation. 2011;123:2736–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ross JS, Tse T, Zarin DA, et al. Publication of NIH funded trials registered in Cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:d7292. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldacre B, DeVito NJ, Heneghan C, et al. Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU clinical trials register: Cohort study and web resource. BMJ. 2018;362:k3218. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Chalmers I Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990;263:1405–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoffman T, Glasziou P, Beller E, et al. Focus on sharing individual patient data distracts from other ways of improving trial transparency. BMJ. 2017;357:j2782. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldacre B The WHO joint statement from funders on trials transparency. BMJ. 2017;357:j2816. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Zarin DA, Tse T Sharing individual participant data (IPD) within the context of the trial reporting system (TRS). PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1001946. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18:122. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Cameron C, Fireman B, Hutton B, et al. Network meta-analysis incorporating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative cohort studies for assessing the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments: Challenges and opportunities. BMC Syst Rev. 2015;4:147. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sim I Two ways of knowing: Big data and evidence-based medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:562–3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Brooker J, Synnot A, McDonald S, et al. Living Evidence Network. Guidance for the production and publication of Cochrane living systematic reviews: Cochrane Reviews in living mode. 2019 Available at: Accessed June 5, 2020. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.