ArticleTransfusion2021
The safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donation: A multi-institutional donor hemovigilance study.
Article in Transfusion, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the safety and therapeutic efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been extensively evaluated, the safety of CCP donation has not been explored in a multi-institutional context. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsNine blood collection organizations (BCOs) participated in a multi-institutional donor hemovigilance effort to assess the safety of CCP donation. Donor adverse events (DAEs) were defined according to the Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation, and severity was assessed using the severity grading tool. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine attributes associated with DAE severity.
resultsThe overall DAE rate was 37.7 per 1000 donations. Repeat apheresis and apheresis-naïve donors experienced adverse event rates of 19.9 and 49.8 per 1000 donations, respectively. Female donors contributed 51.9% of CCP donations with a DAE rate of 49.4 per 1000 donations. The DAE rate for male donors was 27.4 per 1000 donations. Vasovagal reactions accounted for over half of all reported DAEs (51.1%). After adjustment, volume of CCP donated was associated with vasovagal reaction severity (odds ratio [OR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-17.1). Donor age and donation history were also associated with DAE severity. Considerable differences in DAE types and rates were observed across the participating BCOs despite the use of standardized hemovigilance definitions.
conclusionThe safety of CCP donation appears comparable to that of conventional apheresis plasma donation with similar associated risk factors for DAE types and severity.
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.