ArticleCureus2026
Audit of Blood Component Utilization and Request Appropriateness in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood components, packed red blood cells (PRBCs), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), and platelet concentrates (PCs), are finite resources whose inappropriate use compromises patient safety and depletes inventory. Structured audit of transfusion practice underpins sound hemovigilance, yet its application across Indian tertiary centers remains inconsistent. This study quantified the appropriateness of blood component requests and mapped component-wise and departmental variation.
methodsA six-month retrospective cross-sectional audit (July-December 2025) was conducted at a tertiary care hospital blood bank. All blood component requests (n=8,752) were reviewed by two postgraduate pathology trainees, with senior specialist adjudication of disagreements, against prespecified operational criteria adapted from National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) India, British Committee for Standards in Hematology (BCSH), and American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) guidance. The crossmatch-to-transfusion (C:T) ratio was calculated for PRBCs, and request appropriateness was compared across departments using the chi-squared test, with Fisher's exact test where expected cell counts were small and Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiplicity; proportions are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsOf 8,752 requests, 6,202 (70.9%; 95% CI: 69.9-71.8) met appropriateness criteria, and 29.1% did not. FFP requests showed the lowest appropriateness (35.2% not meeting criteria), followed by PRBC (28.7%) and PC (21.6%). The overall PRBC C:T ratio was 2.1:1. Request appropriateness varied significantly across departments (χ²=161.3; df=6; p=3.2×10⁻³²), with Oncology (82.2%) and ICU/Critical Care (81.1%) showing the highest crude rates and Obstetrics and Gynecology (64.1%) and the heterogeneous "Others" group (63.3%) the lowest; these comparisons are unadjusted for component mix and within-patient clustering. Hemoglobin above threshold, FFP requested for volume support without documented coagulopathy, and missing clinical justification were the leading documented reasons among requests not meeting criteria.
conclusionA substantial proportion of blood component requests, particularly for FFP, did not meet prespecified appropriateness criteria, and appropriateness varied markedly across departments and components. These findings support the consideration of a structured, recurring institutional audit-and-feedback program; the effect of such a program was not tested in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.