File(s) under permanent embargo

Reason: 12 month embargo from publication

Re: Patient Blood Management interventions do not demonstrate important clinical benefits or costeffectiveness in people undergoing surgery: a network meta-analysis. (BJA-2020-00167-JH011)

journal contribution
posted on 10.09.2020 by Marius-Andrei Roman, Riccardo Abbasciano, Guiqing Yao, Gavin James Murphy
Spahn and colleagues1 question whether our finding that no trial of PBM demonstrated cost-effectiveness was an accurate representation of the data. In our manuscript, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of PBM interventions by updating the 2015 National Institute for Clinical and Healthcare Excellence (NICE, United Kingdom) Transfusion guidelinereview of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of PBM interventions.2 Our searches identified only one trial3 that reported the cost-effectiveness of a PBM intervention as assessed by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). This trial was cited correctly in the manuscript (Reference 184, which describes the health economic analysis in great detail, and Reference 293, the primary manuscript). Both published reports, concluded that there is 'no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of restrictive and liberal thresholds for red blood cell transfusion after cardiac surgery. [opening paragraph]

History

Citation

British Journal of Anaesthesia, in press

Author affiliation

Department of Cardiovascular Sciences

Version

AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Published in

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Publisher

Elsevier

issn

0007-0912

Acceptance date

18/08/2020

Copyright date

2020

Publisher DOI

Language

en

Publisher version

https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/british-journal-of-anaesthesia

Exports

Logo branding

Categories

Exports