Factors Defining the Clinical Need for Supportive Haemotherapy

  • J. Th. M. de Wolf
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Hematology and Immunology book series (DIHI, volume 31)

Abstract

There should be no difference between the factors defining the clinical need for supportive haemotherapy and other forms of clinical therapy. In general the choice of a therapy must be based on the present balance of efficacy, adverse effects and costs. Efficacy focuses on the benefit achieved when medical technology, for instance the transfusion of blood products, is applied under ideal conditions for specific individuals having a particular medical problem. Effectiveness emphasises what a technology actually does. It reflects performance of a medical technology under ordinary conditions when applied by an average practitioner, to a typical patient. In order to make rational choices we depend on relevant literature. As there are thousands of articles published each year, the first we ought to do is to decide what is relevant literature. Sackett et al. [1] and Guyatt et al. [2,3] made suggestions for the use of articles concerning therapy or prevention. The guides, readers might use for an article on therapy or prevention can be very well applied to evaluations on the use of blood products.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology. A basic science for clinical medicine. Little, Brown and Company. Boston/Toronto/London 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guyati GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 1993;270:2598–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA 194;271:59–63.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menitove JE, McElligott MC, Aster RH. Febrile transfusion reaction: What blood component should be given next? Vox Sang 1982;42:318–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Decary F, Ferner P, Giavedoni L, et al. An investigation of nonhemolytic transfusion reactions. Vox Sang 1984;46:277–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vamvakas EC, Taswell HF. Probability of red cell transfusion in an unselected population. Transfusion 1994;34:1014–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brand A. Passenger leukocytes, cytokines, and transfusion reactions N Engl J Med 1994;331:670–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heddle NM, Klama L, Singer J, et al. The role of the plasma from platelet concentrates in transfusion reactions. N Engl J Med 1994;331:625–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Novotny VMJ. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hayward RSA, Wilson MC, Tunis SR, Bass EB, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines. A. Are the recommendations valid? JAMA 1995;274:570–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 1992;102:305S–11S.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Th. M. de Wolf

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations