ArticleTransfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie2015
Donor Hemovigilance with Blood Donation.
Article in Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vasovagal reactions in whole blood and apheresis donors: a cross-sectional study on donor haemovigilance data from 2016 to 2019 in Italy.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2022Article
- The use of transfusion quality indicators as a tool for hemovigilance system implementation at a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia.Saudi medical journal · 2016Article
- Comments on the Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union of April 29, 2015: Is the Permanent Exclusion of MSM from Giving Blood Compatible with the Directive 2004/33/EC? What Are the Consequences for Blood Donations in Germany?Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReports on unexpected events (UEs) during blood donation (BD) inadequately consider the role of technical UEs.
methodsDefined local and systemic UEs were graded by severity; technical UEs were not graded. On January 1, 2008, E.B.P.S.-Logistics (EBPS) installed the UE module for plasma management software (PMS). Donor room physicians entered UEs daily into PMS. Medical directors reviewed entries quarterly. EBPS compiled data on donors, donations, and UEs from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011.
results6,605 UEs were observed during 166,650 BDs from 57,622 donors for a corrected incidence of 4.30% (0.66% local, 1.59% systemic, 2.04% technical UEs). 2.96% of BDs were accompanied by one UE and 0.45% by >1 UE (2-4). 6.3% of donors donating blood for their first time, 3.5% of those giving blood for their second time, and 1.9% of donors giving their third or more BD experienced UEs. Most common UEs were: discontinued collections due to venous access problems, repeated venipuncture, and small hematomas. Severe circulatory UEs occurred at a rate of 16 per 100,000 BDs.
conclusionsTechnical UEs were common during BD. UEs accompanied first and second donations significantly more often than subsequent donations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.