Trial reportTransfusion2021
Repeat donation and deferral rates in US source plasma donors: Exploratory analysis from the IMPACT trial.
Trial report in Transfusion, 2021. 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.
- Repeat donation and deferral rates in US source plasma donors: Exploratory analysis from the IMPACT trial.Transfusion · 2021Trial
- Source plasma deferral trends: A 3-year analysis of 255 centers in the United States.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2022Article
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
backgroundThe IMPACT trial demonstrated the safety of a new personalized nomogram for plasma donation and provided an opportunity to explore short- to mid-term impact on repeat donation and deferral rates, and factors affecting these. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsIn the IMPACT trial, participants were randomized to donate plasma using an established weight-based nomogram (control) versus a new personalized nomogram incorporating height, weight, and hematocrit (experimental). In this exploratory analysis, repeat donations (per donor, by study arm) were analyzed using negative binomial generalized linear regression models and descriptive statistics. The mean number of donor deferral events was compared between the two arms using logistic regression and count data modeling approaches and were analyzed by lead cause.
resultsThe predicted mean number of repeat donations was similar between the control and experimental arms (6.82 vs. 6.62, respectively; p = .22). Overall, the predicted mean number of repeat donations was significantly higher in males compared with females (p < .0001). Naïve donors had on average 2.8/2.7 (control/experimental) fewer repeat donations compared with experienced donors. In 23, 137 donations from 3443 donors, 798 donors (376 control, 422 experimental, p = .80) had at least one deferral (for any cause). The predicted mean number of deferrals in all categories of interest was not statistically different between the study arms.
conclusionSimilar repeat donation and deferral rates between arms suggest that the new nomogram did not result in disruptions to subsequent donation. Further longitudinal research on mid- to long-term effects is warranted.
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.