ArticleSaudi medical journal2016
The use of transfusion quality indicators as a tool for hemovigilance system implementation at a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo report 2-years experience of using transfusion-related quality indicators as a tool in hemovigilance system implementation.
methodsThe study was carried out between 2012 and 2013. Blood transfusion service data were prospectively collected at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Donor reactions, transfusion reactions, fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in-date wastage, incidents, and errors pertaining to orders, or requests were collected quarterly and prospectively and forwarded to the Hospital Transfusion Committee (HTC) for review.
resultsDonor population consisted of 23,132 donors. One hundred and forty-eight donor reactions were reported, resulting in a rate of 0.6%. Eighty-four transfusion reactions were reported and most were allergic reactions (79.7%). Errors or incidents were reported with approximately 0.3% of the total number of submitted samples/request forms. The FFP in-date wastage was 21.3% of the total FFP wastage. The HTC regularly reviewed the hemovigilance data and reporting; and safety improvements were implemented.
conclusionThe use of quality indicators as a tool for developing and implementing a hemovigilance system provided a better understanding of improvement areas for continuous progress in quality and safety, and is expected to enhance these features along the blood transfusion chain.
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.