Cited by 1Blood donation and transfusion practicesBlood transfusion and managementPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Knowledge assessment of a donor adverse reaction severity grading tool by the National Blood Donor Vigilance Programme of India

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The severity grading tool (SGT) was recently designed by the Association for Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) to have more objectivity in severity assignment for an adverse donor reaction after blood donation. A study was performed in India to assess the knowledge (post-training) and determine the degree of agreement of the SGT between participating centres and the subject expert group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted by the National Coordinating Centre (NCC) of the National Blood Donor Vigilance Programme (NBDVP) of India. Thirty-five real-world case scenarios, validated by seven national and two international experts, were sent to the participating centres, and their responses received (diagnosis and severity grade) were compared and analysed. RESULTS: A total of 50 blood centres participated in the study. The overall agreement between the participating centres and the expert group was 66.4%, with a fair Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) of 0.271 (p-value < 0.05). The degree of agreement was observed to be more than 80% for 12 centres, 60%-80% for 27 centres and <60% for 11 centres. The overall degree/percentage of agreement for cases with single and multiple types of donor adverse reaction was 71.3% and 42.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SGT will be an efficient mode to have uniform objective reporting of the adverse donor reactions and may be implemented in the NBDVP of India. This study also highlights the need for training of the blood centres on the basic definitions and categorization of the donor's adverse reaction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/vox.13502

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A study involving 50 blood centers in India found that in 43.6% of cases, different centers failed to agree on the diagnosis or severity grade.

    “A study involving 50 blood centers in India found that in 43.6% of cases, different centers failed to agree on the diagnosis or severity grade.[25]”

    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 [25]

    The Results section says 50 Indian blood centres were included, and the Analysis of disagreement section identifies incorrect diagnosis and incorrect severity grading as sources of disagreement. But Overall cases reports 66.4% agreement between centres and the expert group—33.6% disagreement, not 43.6%—and does not describe agreement between different centres. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1111/vox.13048 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/trf.14948 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/trf.15830 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bisht, A., Arora, S., Patidar, G., & Marwaha, N.
Affiliations
  • Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (IN)
  • Department of Transfusion Medicine Post Graduate Institute of Child Health (PGICH) Noida Uttar Pradesh India
  • All India Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
  • Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (IN)
Corresponding author
Arora, Satyam
Venue
Vox Sanguinis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-08-02
Volume
118
Issue
9
Pages
721-729
ISSN
  • 0042-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0410
OpenAlex
W4385514085
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
0.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Vox Sanguinis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Saginaw Valley State University
  • Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences
  • All-India Institute of Medical Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood donation and transfusion practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood transfusion and management
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
expert consensus, case scenarios
MeSH terms
Blood Donors, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, India, Prospective Studies, Blood Safety

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