Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34100661›Full record

ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2022

Feline blood donation adverse reactions: classification and description of acute and delayed reactions in a donor population.

Tiago Am Abreu, Andreia St Oliveira, Rui Rf Ferreira, Sandrina Mv Correia, Mafalda Ssq Morais, Raquel Soares, Marta Flamínio, Ignacio Mesa-Sanchez, Rafael R Gopegui, Augusto Jf de Matos

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Multicenter Retrospective Study of Xenotransfusion of Canine Plasma Products to Cats: 14 Cases (2022-2024).Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)
    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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tiago Am AbreuAnimal Blood Bank, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0557-7592
Andreia St OliveiraAnimal Blood Bank, Porto, Portugal.
Rui Rf FerreiraAnimal Blood Bank, Porto, Portugal.
Sandrina Mv CorreiaAnimal Blood Bank, Porto, Portugal.
Mafalda Ssq MoraisAnimal Blood Bank, Porto, Portugal.
Raquel SoaresAnimal Blood Bank, Porto, Portugal.
Marta FlamínioAnimal Blood Bank, Porto, Portugal.
Ignacio Mesa-SanchezAnimal Blood Bank, Barcelona, Spain.
Rafael R GopeguiDepartment of Animal Medicine and Surgery, Veterinary Faculty, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Augusto Jf de MatosCentro de Estudos de Ciência Animal (CECA), Instituto de Ciências e Tecnologias Agrárias e Agro-Alimentares (ICETA), Universidade do Porto (UP), Portugal.
Universidade do Porto · PTBanc de Sang i Teixits · ESHospital Braga · PTUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis article aims to analyse the safety of feline blood donation by describing the frequency and nature of any adverse reactions and their causes, as well as propose measures to decrease the incidence of adverse reactions.

methodsIn this prospective study, any blood donor adverse reactions detected by the clinical staff during and immediately after donation were recorded. The owners of the cats were also surveyed by a veterinary practitioner or veterinary nurse 5 days after donation, using a predefined questionnaire to assess for any clinical or behavioural changes. Data were collected between January 2019 and March 2020 from blood donors enrolled in an animal blood bank programme.

resultsOf 3690 blood donations from 1792 feline donors assessed, post-donation reactions were reported in 1.14% (n = 42): 0.22% (n = 8) were acute reactions, which included weakness, pallor, tachypnoea and open-mouth breathing; and 0.92% (n = 34) were delayed post-donation reactions, with 0.16% involving cutaneous (haematomas and skin rashes, n = 6), 0.68% involving behavioural (n = 25) and 0.08% involving digestive (emesis and inappetence, n = 3) signs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The low incidence of post-donation reactions in this study is encouraging, suggesting that a well-established protocol and competent staff can help to ensure a high level of safety in a feline donor programme and, in turn, increase the confidence of cat owners.

Indexed as

Blood DonorsAnimalsCatsHumansIncidenceProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairesacuteadverse reactionBlood donationdelayed

Identifiers

PMID34100661
PMCPMC10812243
OpenAlexW3169570467

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.