ArticleAsian journal of transfusion science
A study to assess and grade the donor adverse events using the severity grading tool of hemovigilance program of India.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDonor vigilance is the monitoring of donor adverse events (DAEs) to improve donor safety and the quality of the blood donation process. This study aimed to grade and assess DAEs using a new severity grading tool (SGT) by the Hemovigilance Programme of India and to identify factors influencing it. MATERIALS AND
methodsA single-center prospective observational study was conducted over 14 months among whole blood and apheresis donors with DAEs. Data was recorded in the Adverse Blood Donor Reaction Reporting Form-2 and supplemented with Blood Centre records. Data were compiled in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using DATAtab 2023.
resultsOut of 11,171 registered blood donors, 7188 were eligible for donation. The overall incidence of DAEs was 288 (4.0%), out of them 0.3% occurred in predonation, 20.5% during donation, and 79.2% in postdonation. Among the DAEs, 95.8% were Grade 1, and 4.2% were Grade 2. DAEs were significantly higher in females, first-time, and apheresis donors, with increased incidence during noon time, summer season, and outdoor camps. Generalized vasovagal reactions were the most common.
conclusionFour out of 100 donors were experiencing DAE, and the majority was of Grade 1 severity. Strategies may be adopted to mitigate DAEs among those who are predisposed to DAEs. In addition, unreported delayed DAEs are of further concern for the blood center. Our study found that SGT effectively improves the objective severity grading of DAEs. Terminologies like outside medical care are less relevant in India, where most blood donors with DAEs are managed by the medical team at the blood centre.
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.