ArticleBioinformation2026
Risk management in a blood center: A step towards risk reduction.
Article in Bioinformation, 2026. 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
Given the central role of blood bank in patient care, any risks within involving blood bank can have serious implications, potentially affecting patient outcomes. A systematic approach is presently lacking in risk management of blood centers. Therefore, it is of interest to apply techniques to implement effective risk management strategies in a blood bank, with the goal of minimizing its occurrence and enhancing overall safe transfusion. The probability of each risk event was rated on a five-point Likert scale: Very Low (1), Low (2), Moderate (3), High (4) and Very High (5). The severity of potential outcomes was similarly rated: Negligible (1), Minor (2), Moderate (3), Severe (4) and Catastrophic (5). These scores were used to calculate the unweighted Risk Priority Number (RPN) for each risk and risks with higher RPNs were prioritized for mitigation efforts. The top 10 risk with highest RPN seen in our study were: donor send without proper counselling, blood request form not filled properly, misbehaviour by attendants, wrong blood group on blood bag, wrong labelling of blood bag/sample, request from professional donor, blood bag labelling mistake, donor standing quickly after blood donation, RBC contamination in platelets preparation, sample insufficient for analysis.
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.