Self-ignored onsite adverse donor reaction among whole blood donors: A single center experience from India
Abstract
Objectives Adverse donor reactions (ADR) may often go unreported due to donor related or blood center related factors. Possible donor related factors are self-ignorance of the adverse reaction, inertia to notify blood centre and non-compliance to follow-up. A better understanding of the self-ignored adverse donor reaction (SIADR) helps in early detection, avoidance of complications, adoption of mitigation strategies, and retention of donors. In the current study, we aim to identify the incidence and reasons for onsite SIADR among whole blood donors. Materials and methods Prospective single-center observational study where 501 participants who completed whole blood donation were recruited. They were interviewed twice by an experienced investigator to identify any onsite SIADR occurred. First interview was conducted just before leaving the premise and second two days after donation using a peer reviewed and validated questionnaire. Cross-tabulation and Chi-square test were used for bivariate analysis. Results Twelve participants out of 501 (2.39%) were found to have onsite SIADR which was twice the frequency of reported onsite ADR (1.20%) during the study period in our center. A majority (75%) of them experienced grade I vaso-vagal reactions (VVR). Around 58.3% of the SIADR donors ignored the reaction as they perceived it as mild, while 25% perceived the symptoms but failed to interpret them as a reaction. Conclusion In our center, incidence of onsite SIADR was double the incid…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research suggests that many DAEs go unreported, either overlooked by staff or disregarded by donors.
“Research suggests that many DAEs go unreported, either overlooked by staff or disregarded by donors.[24]”
From A study to assess and grade the donor adverse events using the severity grading tool of hemovigilance program of India (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
Cites
Newman, B. H., Pichette, S., Pichette, D., & Dzaka, E. (2003) · Transfusion · doi:10.1046/j.1537-2995.2003.00368.x · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Dogra, A., Sidhu, M., Dogra, M., & Raina, T. R. (2015) · Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · doi:10.1007/s12288-014-0396-y · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Patel, P., Rajendran, V., Nair, A. R., & Gupta, D. (2026) · Asian Journal of Transfusion Science · doi:10.4103/ajts.ajts_154_24
“[24] Reporting DAEs to HvPI is crucial for ensuring donor safety.”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Rajendran, V., Paonam, B., Chenna, D., Mohan, G., Shastry, S., Jose, P., & Kandasamy, D.
- Affiliations
- Manipal Academy of Higher Education (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Kandasamy, Dhivya
- Venue
- Transfusion Clinique et Biologique
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-05
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 124-128
- ISSN
- 1246-7820 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4206631998
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Transfusion Clinique et Biologique (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Blood donation and transfusion practices
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Blood transfusion and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Keywords
- whole blood donors, vasovagal reaction, donor awareness, blood donor retention, blood donation safety
- MeSH terms
- Blood Donors, Humans, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Incidence, Syncope, Vasovagal
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review