ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Restrictive vs. liberal blood transfusion strategies in Africa: clinical outcomes, resource stewardship, and future directions.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood transfusion continues to be a vital part of contemporary healthcare, especially in treating severe anemia, bleeding, trauma, obstetric crises, and critical conditions. In Africa, where transfusion-dependent conditions are prevalent and blood supplies often limited, establishing the best transfusion threshold is crucial for enhancing patient outcomes while maximizing the use of scarce resources. Restrictive transfusion practices that typically use lower hemoglobin thresholds (7-8 g/dL) are now widely accepted globally as they minimize unnecessary transfusions while maintaining safety across various clinical environments. In contrast, liberal approaches, defined by elevated transfusion thresholds (9-10 g/dL), might still be suitable for specific patient groups, such as individuals with acute coronary syndromes, persistent significant bleeding, or serious symptomatic anemia. This review analyzes the existing evidence regarding restrictive vs. liberal blood transfusion strategies in the African context, focusing on clinical outcomes, resource management in healthcare, and prospective avenues for practice and investigation. Research from randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and global guidelines consistently shows that restrictive transfusion strategies correlate with similar mortality, morbidity, hospital stay duration, and functional recovery in most stable hospitalized patients, while minimizing transfusion-related complications and preserving limited blood resources. Nevertheless, the direct relevance of evidence produced mainly in high-income countries needs thorough evaluation due to Africa's distinct epidemiological characteristics, healthcare system constraints, and blood service deficiencies. Enhancing patient blood management initiatives, increasing voluntary blood donations, improving transfusion oversight, and producing robust African clinical evidence are essential priorities.
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.