ArticleHealth science reports2021
Subjective donor deferral as a tool for increased blood transfusion safety: A cross-sectional observational study.
Article in Health science reports, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Confidential unit exclusion (cue): Impact on transfusion safety.Transfusion · 2026Article
- Subjective donor deferral as a tool for increased blood transfusion safety: A cross-sectional observational study.Health science reports · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims at evaluating whether subjective donor deferral (SDD) has the potential for increasing blood transfusion safety.
backgroundAppropriate donor selection via clinical and serologic screening is necessary to prevent transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs). One additional strategy adopted by some Brazilian blood transfusion centers (BTCs) is the rejection of a donation by the pre-donation interviewer based on subjective factors. METHODS/MATERIALS: We conducted a STROBE-guided cross-sectional study including 105 005 prospective donors who presented to our BTC between 1 January 2013, and 31 December 2015. Donors were evaluated for age, gender, education level, donation type and history, confidential unit exclusion, SDD, and results of serologic screening for TTIs.
resultsEven after controlling for potential confounding variables, subjectively deferred donors were more likely to have at least one reactive serology in the standard screening (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 2.13-3.69;
conclusionsRoutine implementation of SDD in donor selection may be an effective additional measure to avoid TTIs, highlighting the importance of interviewer experience, perspicacity, and face-to-face contact with donors for blood safety assurance.
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.