Cited by 6Blood donation and transfusion practicesBlood transfusion and managementEthics in Clinical Research

Adverse Donor Reaction During and Immediately After Venesection

Open access
Mahbub-ul-Alam, M, Hyder, M Shamim, Khan, MB Karim, Islam, M Answarul·1970·TAJ: Journal of Teachers Association

Abstract

There are no reports in the transfusion medicine literature that describe adverse donor reactions after whole-blood donation based on solicited information. A descriptive study was done in the Transfusion Medicine Department, Dhaka Medical College Hospital during the period of July 2000 to December 2001. The present study solicited adverse donor reaction and donor reaction information from 14,413 randomly selected whole-blood donors approximately immediately or within 30 minutes after the whole-blood donation. From this study, percentage of adverse donor reaction was 4.98%. The number of prior donations was inversely proportional to the risk of reaction; It was found that, first-time donors have a higher frequency of reactions (5.04%) than do repeat donors (4.96%).The value for first-time or repeated donor were significant (p<0.0001).Female donors are more vulnerable to adverse donor reaction than male donors (5.97%) (4.94%) (p<0.001). In this study it was also found that, fainting or vasovagal attack was more common in female donors (0.77 %) than male donors (0.35 %). It was also found incidence were more in first time donor (1.08%) than repeated donor (0.0%) in case of female donor. Adverse donor reaction after donation and complaints may be more common than previously thought. The post donation follow-up and interview is a good tool for defining the blood donor's experience. It can also be used to evaluate and potentially improve blood donor safety and comfort. doi: 10.3329/taj.v20i1.3088 TAJ 2007; 20(1): 39-47

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3329/taj.v20i1.3088

Cites

17 of 17 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 [25]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mahbub-ul-Alam, M., Hyder, M. S., Khan, M. K., & Islam, M. A.
Affiliations
Dhaka Medical College and Hospital (BD)
Venue
TAJ: Journal of Teachers Association
Published
1970-01-01
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
39-47
ISSN
  • 1019-8555 (ISSN-L)
  • 2408-8854
OpenAlex
W2097152700
Cited by
6
References
17
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
TAJ Journal of Teachers Association (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 donation, phlebotomy, blood donors, first-time donors, repeat donors, sex differences, vasovagal syncope, post-donation follow-up, blood donor 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