To evaluate the effects of liberal transfusion strategy (trigger haemoglobin ≤90–100 g/L) compared with a restrictive strategy (trigger haemoglobin ≤70–80 g/L) on long-term neurological functional outcome in anaemic adult patients with acute acquired brain injury (ABI).

Systematic review and study-level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane from inception to 6 February 2025.

RCTs enrolling patients with acute ABI and anaemia (haemoglobin ≤100 g/L), comparing a liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategy.

Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analysis of RCTs and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was an unfavourable neurological functional outcome, using the Glasgow Outcome or modified Rankin scales.

Five trials enrolling 2364 patients with acute ABI and anaemia were included in the primary analysis. Liberal transfusion reduces the risk of unfavourable neurological outcome (risk ratio (RR)=0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95, high certainty). Liberal transfusion may reduce severe disability (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02, moderate certainty), and increase good recovery compared with restrictive transfusion (RR=1.29, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76, low certainty). We found no difference in the risk of most adverse events, including death. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I²=0%–36%) for neurological outcomes.

In adults with acute ABI and anaemia, liberal transfusion reduces the risk of unfavourable outcome (high certainty) and possibly improves the chances of good recovery (low certainty) when compared with restrictive transfusion.

CRD42025628732.

Recently, legal questions have increasingly arisen in intensive care medicine (ICM), especially when it comes to end-of-life decisions. Still, for Europe, there is not much evidence about doctors’ situational legal knowledge and legal education during medical studies and further qualification. The present study was initiated to analyse these hitherto unexplored aspects in Germany.

A quantitative online survey has been performed among German intensive care physicians. The voluntary participants of the anonymous online survey were asked to answer legal questions related to end-of-life policies, informed consent, surrogate decision making or advance directives. We tested pure factual knowledge in five questions. The other five questions tested situational knowledge using case vignettes. Every question could be answered with ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘do not know’. Furthermore, the participants were asked to assess their subjective certainty on a Likert scale and to provide information about their professional experience (PE) and qualification.

All members of the two German professional societies for anaesthesiology who work in ICM were asked to take part in the survey.

952 completed questionnaires were analysed. 86% of the participants were specialists, and 56% held the additional qualification in ICM. 78% had more than 10 years of general clinical experience, and 62% had more than 5 years of experience in ICM.

On average, the participants answered the five facts–questions in 90.8% correctly. However, only 73.6% of the five case vignettes were answered correctly. Specialists, physicians with a lot of PE or physicians holding the additional qualification in ICM did not perform better than assistants or physicians with little PE.

German intensive care physicians have relevant gaps regarding situational legal knowledge, which are independent of their PE or qualification and persist. This may be due to difficulties in interpretation and implementation of law. Since these knowledge gaps can lead to liability and criminal prosecution, these gaps should be closed through awareness-raising and continuous education.