ArticleAsian journal of transfusion science
Hemovigilance data: An effective approach for evaluating bacterial protection systems for platelet transfusions.
Article in Asian journal of transfusion science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveSeptic transfusion reactions due to bacterial contamination in platelet concentrates (PCs) are continually reported to hemovigilance (HV) programs. Worldwide, blood centers use different systems to avoid transfusion-associated bacterial sepsis in PCs. Herein, national HV data were gathered to compare bacterial protection systems and to assess the risk of bacterial contamination. MATERIALS AND
methodsHV data with definite transfusion-associated bacterial sepsis in PCs were obtained from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom (U. K.), and Switzerland between 2006 and 2016. These data were reviewed to evaluate bacterial protection systems including early small-volume (ESV), early large-volume (ELV), and delayed large-volume (DLV) bacterial culture screening and pathogen inactivation (PI) treatment.
resultsImplementation of DLV bacterial culture screening in the U. K. and PI treatment in Switzerland resulted in significant reductions (
conclusionDLV bacterial culture and PI treatment significantly reduced the incidence of septic reactions. The advantages and disadvantages of both systems merit further investigation before implementation.
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.