A multicentred study to validate a consensus bleeding assessment tool developed by the biomedical excellence for safer transfusion collaborative for use in patients with haematological malignancy

Dyer, C., Alquist, C. R., Cole-Sinclair, M., Curnow, E., Dunbar, N. M., Estcourt, L. J., Kaufman, R., Kutner, J. M., McCullough, J., McQuilten, Z., Potiphar, Lee, Rioux-Masse, B., Slichter, S., Tinmouth, A., Webert, K., Yokoyama, A. P. and Stanworth, S. J. (2018) A multicentred study to validate a consensus bleeding assessment tool developed by the biomedical excellence for safer transfusion collaborative for use in patients with haematological malignancy. Vox Sanguinis, 113 (3). pp. 251-259. doi:10.1111/vox.12627

[img] Text (peer-reviewed article)
8146 Potiphar (2017) A multicentred study to validate a consensus bleeding.pdf - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only
Available under License All Rights Reserved.

Download (322kB)

Abstract

Background There continues to be uncertainty about the optimal approach to documenting bleeding data in platelet transfusion trials, with a desire to apply a common assessment tool across all trials. With this in mind, a consensus bleeding assessment tool (BAT) has been developed by the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) collaborative, based on review of data collection forms used in published randomized trials and following content validation with a range of healthcare professionals at seven haematology centres through BEST members. This study aimed to evaluate reliability and reproducibility of the consensus BAT. Methods Replicated clinical assessments of bleeding were undertaken by participants with haematological malignancies recruited at four haematology centres in an international, multicentred, observational study. Concordance of repeat assessments was calculated for agreement in site and grade of bleeding observed. Results Forty patients consented to participate, and 13 trained bleeding assessors collected these data. Bleeding assessments were carried out on 113 separate days. Of all 225 bleeding assessments, 204 were compared for grade concordance, and 160 were compared for site concordance. There was very good grade concordance (83%, 95% confidence interval 74–93%) and good bleeding site concordance (69%, 95% confidence interval 57–79%) in observations of bleeding. Discordance was primarily in relation to assessing skin bleeding. Conclusions Alongside a structured training programme, levels of concordance for a consensus BAT were high. Researchers using assessment tools for bleeding need to balance comprehensive data collection against potential loss of accuracy for some types of bleeding, such as skin findings.

Item Type: Article
Article Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Clinical trial; Platelet transfusions; Transfusion therapy; Hematologic Neoplasms, therapy
Subjects: R Medicine > RC Internal medicine
R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0254 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology (including Cancer)
Divisions: Schools and Research Institutes > School of Health and Social Care > Nursing
Research Priority Areas: Sport, Exercise, Health & Wellbeing
Depositing User: Marta Kemp
Date Deposited: 11 Feb 2020 10:17
Last Modified: 01 Jun 2020 15:49
URI: http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/8146

University Staff: Request a correction | Repository Editors: Update this record

University Of Gloucestershire

Bookmark and Share

Find Us On Social Media:

Social Media Icons Facebook Twitter Google+ YouTube Pinterest Linkedin

Other University Web Sites

University of Gloucestershire, The Park, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL50 2RH. Telephone +44 (0)844 8010001.