Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25089595›Full record

ArticleBone marrow transplantation2014

Deferrals of volunteer stem cell donors referred for evaluation for matched-unrelated stem cell donation.

S Bräuninger, K Thorausch, B Luxembourg, M Schulz, K U Chow, E Seifried, H Bonig

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

S BräuningerDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics/Cell Processing (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Frankfurt, Germany.
K ThorauschDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics/Cell Processing (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Frankfurt, Germany.
B LuxembourgDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics/Cell Processing (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Frankfurt, Germany.
M SchulzDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics/Cell Processing (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Frankfurt, Germany.
K U ChowAmbulantes Krebszentrum Schaubstraße, Frankfurt, Germany.
E Seifried1] Department of Cellular Therapeutics/Cell Processing (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Frankfurt, Germany [2] Institute for Transfusion Medicine and Immunohematology of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
H Bonig1] Department of Cellular Therapeutics/Cell Processing (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Frankfurt, Germany [2] Institute for Transfusion Medicine and Immunohematology of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany [3] Department of Medicine/Division of Hematology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To minimize donor risk and maintain public support, volunteer donor stem cell donation, whether by mobilized leukapheresis or marrow aspiration, requires careful donor eligibility assessment. Many contraindications to stem cell donation exist, yet analyses of donor deferral rates are not available. In a 36-month series encompassing 2493 potential stem cell donors, we analyzed frequencies and reasons for deferrals. All were presumed eligible by their registries because of previously submitted structured health questionnaire and formal telephone interviews. After assessment by our center's physicians, 3.3% of donors proved ineligible, but 5.6% more were eligible for only one of the collection methods. Higher deferral rates were associated with female sex, increasing age and mobilized stem cell donation vs marrow. Exclusion criteria were identified with approximately similar frequency by medical history, physical examination and laboratory testing. Reasons for deferrals almost exclusively served to protect donor safety; the rare recipient-directed safety concerns could be, and often were, overridden in agreement with the transplant center. As formal analyses have shown, with careful assessment, stem cell donation is acceptably safe, but the plethora of deferral reasons mandate that only physicians with specific experience should evaluate stem cell donors, that is, this task should not be delegated to paramedical personnel.

Indexed as

Living DonorsRegistriesStem CellsUnrelated DonorsAdolescentAdultAge FactorsDonor SelectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID25089595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.