Cited by 4Blood donation and transfusion practicesBlood transfusion and managementOrgan Donation and Transplantation

Donor Hemovigilance Programme in managing Blood Transfusion Needs: Complications of Whole Blood Donation

Open access
Mangwana, S·2013·Journal of Pathology of Nepal

Abstract

Background: Hemovigilance like quality systems and audits have become an integral part of Blood Transfusion Services in the developed countries and has contributed greatly to its development. Hemovigilance begins with donors and must enable the collection of information on reactions occurring during the donation of blood, selections of donors and to prevent such incidents. The aim of study was to help identify the trends of adverse events , occurring in blood donors at a tertiary-care hospital, to recommend best practices to improve donor care and safety Materials and Methods: This record-based study was conducted on all adverse events related to allogenic whole blood donations performed over 24 months. All whole blood donations were analyzed. All adverse events occurring during or at the end of the donation were noted using a standardized format and analyzed determining significance at p<0.05. Results: Overall rate was 0.3% with vasovagal reactions constituting 82%, and 18% mild syncopal reactions (p<0.001). Immediate vasovagal reaction with injury was very rare (0.007%). Vasovagal reactions showed a significant association with young age, female gender, first time donation status. Mean age of persons recording adverse effects was 30.23 ± 7.49 years as compared to those without adverse effects, 31.14 ± 8.56 years. Conclusion: Donor safety is an essential perquisite to increase voluntary blood donation. AE analysis helps in identifying the blood donors at risk of AE, applying appropriate motivational strategies, predonation counseling, care during and after donation, developing guidelines and hemovigilance programme in countries with limited resources. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/jpn.v3i6.8993 Journal of Pathology of Nepal (2013) Vol. 3, 459-463

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3126/jpn.v3i6.8993

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Many studies have reported higher prevalence of vasovagal reactions among female donors in various donation setups.

    “Many studies have reported higher prevalence of vasovagal reactions among the female donors in various donation setup (4,9,16,17,22,23, 24, 25, 26).”

    From ADVERSE EVENTS IN BLOOD DONORS: SPECTRUM AND REMEDY (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mangwana, S.
Corresponding author
Mangwana, S
Venue
Journal of Pathology of Nepal
Published
2013-10-24
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
459-463
ISSN
  • 2091-0797 (ISSN-L)
  • 2091-0908
OpenAlex
W2092113469
Cited by
4
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Pathology of Nepal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Organ Donation and Transplantation
Keywords
hemovigilance, whole blood donation, adverse events, vasovagal reaction, syncope, donor safety, blood donor selection, voluntary blood donation, risk factors

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