ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Profile and risk factors of blood donors who experienced adverse reactions: a cross-sectional study on donor hemovigilance data reported to the national network from 2020 to 2022 in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While international cooperation in blood donor safety surveillance is growing, data from China's national network remains unpublished. We have established a national donor hemovigilance system to collect data and analyze the current state of blood donor safety in China. Materials and methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study on donor hemovigilance data reported to the national network from 2020 to 2022 in China. Demographic information and data on adverse donor reactions (ADRs) among blood donors were collected from 85 Blood Services. R software (version 4.2.3) was used for all statistical analyses. Frequency and composition rates were used to describe the data of total donation, as well as data on the different types of ADRs. The Chi-square test was used to analyze risk factors for Vasovagal reactions (VVRs) and inter-group comparisons of VVRs stratified by age (18-22; 23-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-60), gender (female/male), donation history (first time/repeat), and blood donation volume (200 mL/300 mL/400 mL), type of collection site (fixed site/blood collection shelter/blood collection vehicle/others) and donor source (individual/social group/high school). Lastly, risk factors for blood donation-related syncope were explored. Results: Between 2020 and 2022, 32,523 cases of ADRs were reported, among which VVRs accounted for 96.8% of all reactions. The overall reported incidence of ADRs was 12.577%. Notably, the incidence of VVRs decreased with increasing donor age. Additionally, the estimated incidences of VVRs were higher among female donors (13.600%) and first-time donors (18.536%) compared to male donors (11.205%) or repeat donors (5.819%). Moreover, 1,120 VVRs with syncope were recorded, accounting for 3.56% of total VVR cases. Finally, donors from outdoor blood collection sites (0.590%) and groups (1.073%) were at a significantly higher risk of syncope compared to those from indoor blood donation sites (0.438%) and individual donors (0.174%). Conclusion: The reported incidence rate of ADRs related to blood donation was very low. The higher prevalence of VVR and syncope in young, females, first-time donors, college students, and donating in mobile vehicles.
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.