ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2020
Comparison of a closed system and an open system for blood collection in feline donors.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemical Sensors and Biosensors for Point-of-Care Testing of Pets: Opportunities for Individualized Diagnostics of Companion Animals.ACS sensors · 2025Review
- 2021 ISFM Consensus Guidelines on the Collection and Administration of Blood and Blood Products in Cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2021Article
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
objectivesThis research aimed to evaluate the performance of a closed blood collection system and to compare it with an open system in terms of feasibility, tolerability by the donor, quality of blood collected and bacterial contamination.
methodsEight feline blood donors were prospectively and randomly subjected to both collection methods. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and blood pressure (BP) were evaluated before sedation, after sedation and after blood collection. The duration of the donation, the formation of a hematoma, and the degree of hemolysis and packed cell volume (PCV) of each blood unit were evaluated. Aliquot samples were aseptically collected from each unit and tested for bacterial contamination by culture and PCR on days 0, 14 and 28 of storage.
resultsThere was no significant difference between collection methods for HR and RR at any time point. Before sedation, the mean systolic BP was significantly higher with the closed system (closed 169 mmHg, open 137 mmHg; CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our designed closed system appears to be well adapted to feline blood collection and was well tolerated by the donors, performing similarly to an open system, and could represent a valuable clinical device for the development of a feline blood bank, namely feline blood storage.
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.