ADVERSE EVENTS IN BLOOD DONORS: SPECTRUM AND REMEDY
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Blood donation i.e. recruitment of new donors as well as the retention of existing donors forms an important backbone of any donation programme. Adverse events of any form can affect donor retention severely. This study aims to analyse the different types of adverse events with suggestions of the preventive measures. Material And Methods: Retrospective observational study conducted in allogeneic blood donors in Central India from January 2018 to May 2022. All the donor adverse events were recorded, retrieved and were categorised as vasovagal reactions, hematoma, extravasation, nerve injury. Out of total 95483 blood donors during the study period, 892 Results: 28 were males (93.45%) and 6255 were females (6.55%). The donations comprised 73216 (76.68%) voluntary donations in the blood center, 4756 replacement donations (5%) and 17511 units were donated in blood donation camps (18.32%). Overall, 1805 donors (1.89%) experienced adverse events with mean age of 36.0±6.3 years. Female donors who experienced adverse events were more than male donors ( n = 1100 vs.750). Vasovagal reactions were seen in 974 (1.02%) donors (females = 772, males = 202). Hematoma developed in 506 donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306 and 19 donors respectively. Replacement donors showed slightly more frequency of vasovagal reactions while hematoma and nerve injury were seen more commonly in donation camps. Extravasation happened more frequently in voluntary donors. Study of the blood donation adverse events vary among different Conclusion: countries. Proper measures are needed to maintain donor retention and recruit new donors
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
7 of 30 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
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).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 9 sources checked- cites [4] 4. Van Dongen A. Easy come, easy go. Retention of blood donors. Transfus Med. 2015 Aug;25(4):227-33. doi: 10.1111/tme.12249. Epub 2015 Sep 7. PMID: 26399971. source
- cites [9] 9. Trouern-Trend JJ, Cable RG, Badon SJ, Newman BH, Popovsky MA. A case- controlled multicenter study of vasovagal reactions in blood donors: Influence of sex, age, donation status, weight, blood pressure, and pulse. Transfusion 1999;39:316-20. doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1999.39399219291.x. source
- cites [16] 16. Eder AF, Dy BA, Kennedy JA. The American Red Cross Donor Hemovigilance Program, complications of donation. Transfusion 2006; 46: 2037-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01811.x. Epub 2008 Jul 9. source
- cites [17] 17. Crocco I, Franchini M, Garozzo G. Adverse reactions in blood and apheresis donors: experience of two Italian transfusion centres. Blood Transfus 2009; 7: 35-38. doi: 10.2450/2008.0018-08. source
The Results report vasovagal reaction rates by donation type, not by donor sex. The Discussion says sex was not predictive of severe reactions, but that does not establish whether female donors had a higher prevalence of vasovagal reactions overall. Searches for female donors and sex found no passage reporting the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [22] 22. Tomasulo PA, Anderson AJ, Paluso MB, Gutschenritter MA, Aster RH. A study of criteria for blood donor deferral. Transfusion 1980;20:511-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1980.20581034503.x. source
- cites [23] 23. McVay PA, Andrews A, Kaplan EB, Black DB, Stehling LC, Strauss RG. Donation reactions among autologous donors. Transfusion 1990;30:249-52. doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1990.30390194347.x. source
- cites [24] 24. F S, Siddiqui M A E, Rahman K G M, et al. Incidence of vasovagal reactions among the blood donors attending at Transfusion Medicine Department of Dhaka Medical College Hospital. Bangladesh Journal of Medicine 2011; 22(2):47-50. DOI:10.3329/BJMED.V22I2.13589 source
- cites [25] 25. Mahbub-ul-Alam M, Hyder M S, Karim Khan M B, Answarul-Islam M. Adverse donor reactions during & immediately after Venesection. The Journal of Te a c h e r s A s s o c i a t i o n R M C R a j s h a h i TA J. 2 0 0 7 ; 2 0 ( 1 ) : 3 9 4 7 . DOI:10.3329/TAJ.V20I1.3088 source
- cites [26] 26. Mangwana S. Donor Hemovigilance Programme in managing Blood Transfusion Needs: Complications of Whole Blood Donation. Journal of Pathology of Nepal. 2013; vol 3: 459-63. DOI:10.3126/JPN.V3I6.8993 source
- Premisecitation
Studies from India reported VVR prevalence between 63.5% to 70.0%.
“Studies from India reported VVR prevalence between 63.5% to 70.0% (2,7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [2] 2. Pathak C, Pujani M, Pahuja S, Jain M. Adverse reactions in whole blood donors: an Indian scenario. Blood Transfus 2011;9: 46-9. doi: 10.2450/2010.0002-10 source
- cites [7] 7. Agnihotri N, Marwaha N, Sharma RR. Analysis of adverse events and predisposing factors in voluntary and replacement whole blood donors: A study from north India. Asian J Transfus Sci 2012;6:155-60. doi: 10.4103/0973- 6247.98922 source
The Discussion reports that vasovagal reactions (VVRs) constituted 63.5% of all adverse events, supporting the lower figure attributed to this study. That is a share of adverse events, not VVR prevalence among donors; the paper reports an overall donor VVR rate of about 1.6%. The 70.0% figure may belong to the other cited study and is not established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Hematomas were reported as the second commonest adverse event among donors.
“Hematomas were reported as the second commonest AE among the donors (7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] 7. Agnihotri N, Marwaha N, Sharma RR. Analysis of adverse events and predisposing factors in voluntary and replacement whole blood donors: A study from north India. Asian J Transfus Sci 2012;6:155-60. doi: 10.4103/0973- 6247.98922 source
- Findingown data
Vasovagal reactions were seen in 974 (1.02%) donors.
“Vasovagal reactions were seen in 974 (1.02%) donors (females = 772, males = 202).”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Vasovagal reactions were seen in 974 (1.02%) donors (females = 772, males = 202).”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“Vasovagal reactions were seen in 974 (1.02%) donors (53.9% of total AE) (females = 772, males = 202).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
The donations comprised 73,216 (76.68%) voluntary donations in the blood center.
“The donations comprised 73216 (76.68%) voluntary donations in the blood center, 4756 replacement donations (5%) and 17511 units were donated in blood donation camps (18.32%).”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“The donations comprised 73216 (76.68%) voluntary donations in the blood center, 4756 replacement donations (5%) by relatives and friends of admitted patients and 17511 units were donated in blood donation camps (18.32%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
Replacement donors showed slightly more frequency of vasovagal reactions.
“Replacement donors showed slightly more frequency of vasovagal reactions while hematoma and nerve injury were seen more commonly in donation camps.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Replacement donors showed slightly more frequency of vasovagal reactions while hematoma and nerve injury were seen more commonly in donation camps.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“Replacement donors showed slightly more frequency of VVR.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
No statistically significant association was found between gender and type of adverse event (p=0.733887664).
“However, no statistically significant association was found between gender and type of adverse event (p value = 0.733887664).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Findingown data
Hematoma and nerve injury were seen more commonly in donation camps.
“Replacement donors showed slightly more frequency of vasovagal reactions while hematoma and nerve injury were seen more commonly in donation camps.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Replacement donors showed slightly more frequency of vasovagal reactions while hematoma and nerve injury were seen more commonly in donation camps.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
In voluntary blood donation, vasovagal reactions were significantly higher in females as compared to hematoma and extravasation in males (p=0.00251611).
“While analyzing gender association with adverse events in voluntary blood donation, vasovagal reactions were significantly higher in females as compared to hematoma and extravasation in males (p value= 0.00251611)(figure 4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Findingown data
The donations comprised 4,756 (5%) replacement donations.
“The donations comprised 73216 (76.68%) voluntary donations in the blood center, 4756 replacement donations (5%) and 17511 units were donated in blood donation camps (18.32%).”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“The donations comprised 73216 (76.68%) voluntary donations in the blood center, 4756 replacement donations (5%) by relatives and friends of admitted patients and 17511 units were donated in blood donation camps (18.32%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
19 vasovagal reactions were severe (1.9%).
“Most of the cases of vasovagal reactions were mild (93.12%, n= 907) with only 48 moderate (4.9%) and 19 severe (1.9%) vasovagal reactions.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“Most of the cases of VVR were mild (93.12%, n= 907 ) with 48 moderate (4.9%) and 19 severe (1.9%) VVR.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
- Findingown data
In replacement blood donation, similar results were seen (p=0.04085015).
“Similar results were seen in replacement blood donation ( p value =0.04085015).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Findingown data
The association between type of donation and adverse event was not statistically significant (P=0.169679425).
“The association between type of donation and adverse event was not statistically significant ( P value = 0.169679425)(figure 3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Findingown data
Among donors with vasovagal reactions, 772 were female and 202 were male.
“Vasovagal reactions were seen in 974 (1.02%) donors (females = 772, males = 202).”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Vasovagal reactions were seen in 974 (1.02%) donors (females = 772, males = 202).”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“Vasovagal reactions were seen in 974 (1.02%) donors (53.9% of total AE) (females = 772, males = 202).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
Association of gender with severity of vasovagal reactions was not statistically significant (p=0.929279).
“Females clearly experienced more vasovagal reactions as compared to males, however, association of gender with severity was not found to be statistically significant (p value = 0.929279)(figure 2).”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“However, the severity was not found to be statistically significant (p value = 0.929279).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
- Findingown data
Extravasation of blood was seen in 306 donors.
“Hematoma developed in 506 donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306 and 19 donors respectively.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Hematoma developed in 506 donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306 and 19 donors respectively.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“Hematoma developed in 506(0.5%)donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306(0.01%)and 19(0.01%)donors respectively in the present study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
Hematoma developed in 506 donors.
“Hematoma developed in 506 donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306 and 19 donors respectively.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Hematoma developed in 506 donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306 and 19 donors respectively.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“Hematoma developed in 506(0.5%)donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306(0.01%)and 19(0.01%)donors respectively in the present study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingnone given
Extravasation happened more frequently in voluntary donors.
“Extravasation happened more frequently in voluntary donors.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Extravasation happened more frequently in voluntary donors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
Overall, 1,805 donors (1.89%) experienced adverse events during or immediately after blood donation.
“Overall, 1805 donors (1.89%) experienced adverse events with mean age of 36.0±6.3 years.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Among all these whole blood donors, 1805 (1.89%) experienced adverse events during or immediately after the process of blood donation.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“In the present study, 1.89% donors experienced adverse events during or immediately after the process of blood donation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
The mean age of donors who experienced adverse events was 36.0±6.3 years.
“Overall, 1805 donors (1.89%) experienced adverse events with mean age of 36.0±6.3 years.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“The mean age of donors who experienced adverse events was 36.0±6.3 years.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
Nerve injury was seen in 19 donors.
“Hematoma developed in 506 donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306 and 19 donors respectively.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Hematoma developed in 506 donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306 and 19 donors respectively.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“Hematoma developed in 506(0.5%)donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306(0.01%)and 19(0.01%)donors respectively in the present study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
Type of blood donation did not show significant association with severity of vasovagal reactions (P=0.871453763).
“Type of blood donation did not show significant association with severity of vasovagal reactions ( P value =0.871453763).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Findingown data
Female donors who experienced adverse events were more numerous than male donors (1,100 vs. 750).
“Female donors who experienced adverse events were more than male donors ( n = 1100 vs.750).”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Female donors who experienced adverse events were more than male donors ( n = 1100 vs.750).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
Most vasovagal reactions were mild (93.12%, n=907).
“Most of the cases of vasovagal reactions were mild (93.12%, n= 907) with only 48 moderate (4.9%) and 19 severe (1.9%) vasovagal reactions.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“Most of the cases of VVR were mild (93.12%, n= 907 ) with 48 moderate (4.9%) and 19 severe (1.9%) VVR.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
- Findingown data
48 vasovagal reactions were moderate (4.9%).
“Most of the cases of vasovagal reactions were mild (93.12%, n= 907) with only 48 moderate (4.9%) and 19 severe (1.9%) vasovagal reactions.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
“Most of the cases of VVR were mild (93.12%, n= 907 ) with 48 moderate (4.9%) and 19 severe (1.9%) VVR.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION: · plain
- Findingnone given
Gender based incidences of nerve injury were almost equal.
“Gender based incidences were however almost equal.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Findingreasoning
Extravasation was seen slightly more frequently in males in voluntary and replacement donation.
“Extravasation was seen slightly more frequently in males in voluntary and replacement donation most likely due to learning attempts at phlebotomy by laboratory technology trainees.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Findingown data
Female donors, both voluntary and replacement, had significantly higher reaction rate almost twice as compared to male donors.
“Female donors, both voluntary and replacement, had significantly higher reaction rate almost twice as compared to male donors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Findingreasoning
Males developed hematomas more frequently.
“In our study, males developed hematomas more frequently, most likely due to restlessness and overexcitement.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Findingown data
In blood donation camps, extravasation was significantly higher in females (p=0.040229).
“Although blood donation camps showed a similar trend in vasovagal reaction and hematoma, extravasation was significantly higher in females (p value = 0.040229)(figure 5).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Premisecitation
In the medical literature there is broad variation in the frequency of adverse events during donations.
“In the medical literature there is broad variation in the frequency of adverse events during donations (13)(14)(15).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites (13)(14)(15)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Higher turnover of donors in camps may lead to increased pressure on a small team of phlebotomists leading to few faulty pricks causing hematomas.
“As donor recruitment and availability of beds is decided by organizers in such camps, higher turnover of donors may lead to increased pressure on a small team of phlebotomists leading to few faulty pricks causing hematomas.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Study by Ryhan R et al reported reaction rate to be 5.3%.
“Study by Ryhan R et al reported reaction rate to be 5.3% in their study (21).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [21] 21. Ryhan R , Sawhney V , Sidhu M , Handoo S. Study of Adverse Donor Reactions in Whole Blood Donors in a Tertiary Care Hospital. International Journal of Health Sciences & Research 2017;7(3); 56-64 ISSN: 2249-9571
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
Any adverse event, even a minor one, will definitely reduce the likelihood of repeat donation.
“Their significance lies in the fact that any adverse event, even a minor one will definitely reduce the likelihood of repeat donation (11,12).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [11] 11. Eder AF, Hillyer CD, Dy BA. Adverse reactions to allogeneic whole blood donation by 16-and 17-year[1]olds. JAMA 2008; 299: 2279-86. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.19.2279. source
- cites [12] 12. Custer B, Chinn A, Hirshler N. The consequences of temporary deferral on future whole blood donation. Transfusion 2007; 47: 1514-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2007.01292.x. source
- Interpretationreasoning
Higher incidence of nerve injury in blood camps can be attributed to the same reasons as hematomas.
“Higher incidence of nerve injury in Blood camps can also be attributed to above mentioned reasons.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The present study's 1.89% adverse event rate is in concordance with studies reporting a range of 0.3% to 3.8%.
“This was found to be in concordance with various studies conducted all over the world which mentioned the range of adverse events varying from 0.3% to 3.8% (2,(16)(17)(18)(19)(20).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites (2,(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- May combine two claims. 16
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationYoung age, lower weight, female gender, and first-time donation status were associated with significantly higher reaction prevalence.
“Young age, lower weight, female gender, and first-time donation status were associated with significantly higher reaction prevalence (7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] 7. Agnihotri N, Marwaha N, Sharma RR. Analysis of adverse events and predisposing factors in voluntary and replacement whole blood donors: A study from north India. Asian J Transfus Sci 2012;6:155-60. doi: 10.4103/0973- 6247.98922 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAgnihotri et al reported 63.5% VVR and were mostly mild in nature.
“Agnihotri et al reported 63.5% VVR and were mostly mild in nature (7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] 7. Agnihotri N, Marwaha N, Sharma RR. Analysis of adverse events and predisposing factors in voluntary and replacement whole blood donors: A study from north India. Asian J Transfus Sci 2012;6:155-60. doi: 10.4103/0973- 6247.98922 source
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationVariation in adverse event frequency across studies can be attributed to differences in age groups, donor type, collection staff behavior, and use of donor chairs versus flat bed.
“This variation can be attributed to the difference in the age groups of participants in different studies, the blood donor type (i.e., voluntary donations versus replacement donors), behavior of collection staff, use of donor chairs versus flat bed (7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] 7. Agnihotri N, Marwaha N, Sharma RR. Analysis of adverse events and predisposing factors in voluntary and replacement whole blood donors: A study from north India. Asian J Transfus Sci 2012;6:155-60. doi: 10.4103/0973- 6247.98922 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAgnihotri et al determined hematoma as an adverse event in 35% of all reactions.
“Newman et al reported a very high frequency of bruises in 15.1% of donors ( 27) while Agnihotri et al determined hematoma as an adverse event in 35% of all reactions (7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] 7. Agnihotri N, Marwaha N, Sharma RR. Analysis of adverse events and predisposing factors in voluntary and replacement whole blood donors: A study from north India. Asian J Transfus Sci 2012;6:155-60. doi: 10.4103/0973- 6247.98922 source
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataArterial prick, cardiac arrest, and seizures were not observed.
“Arterial prick, cardiac arrest, and seizures were not observed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe study included 95,483 blood donors, of whom 89,228 (93.45%) were male and 6,255 (6.55%) were female.
“Data of total 95483 blood donors was retrieved, out of which 89228 were males (93.45%) and 6255 were females (6.55%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data17,511 units (18.32%) were donated in blood donation camps.
“The donations comprised 73216 (76.68%) voluntary donations in the blood center, 4756 replacement donations (5%) and 17511 units were donated in blood donation camps (18.32%).”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“The donations comprised 73216 (76.68%) voluntary donations in the blood center, 4756 replacement donations (5%) by relatives and friends of admitted patients and 17511 units were donated in blood donation camps (18.32%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
May combine two claims.
FindingreasoningSome cases of mild thrombocytopenia and donors on medications (blood thinners, hypolipidemics, antimalarial etc.) were overlooked due to rushed pre-donation counseling and improper history taking of female donors.
“However, due to rushed pre-donation counseling and improper history taking of female donors, some cases of mild thrombocytopenia and donors on some medications (blood thinners, hypolipidemics, antimalarial etc.) were overlooked.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataFemale donors experienced more vasovagal reactions while male donors presented with hematoma and extravasation more frequently.
“Female donors experienced more vasovagal reactions while male donors presented with hematoma and extravasation more frequently(figure 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationVarious studies documented that 2-6% of donors experience an adverse event, with 0.08-0.3% experiencing syncope.
“Various studies documented that 2-6% of donors experience an AE, with 0.08-0.3%who experience syncope (8,9).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [8] 8. Newman BH. Donor reactions and injuries from whole blood donations (review). Transfus Med Rev 1997;11:64-75. DOI: 10.1016/s0887- 7963(97)80011-9 source
- cites [9] 9. Trouern-Trend JJ, Cable RG, Badon SJ, Newman BH, Popovsky MA. A case- controlled multicenter study of vasovagal reactions in blood donors: Influence of sex, age, donation status, weight, blood pressure, and pulse. Transfusion 1999;39:316-20. doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1999.39399219291.x. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationComplete clinical examination, proper history taking and comfortable donation room helps in reducing such incidences.
“Complete clinical examination, proper history taking and comfortable donation room helps in reducing such incidences (30).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [30] 30. Thijsen A, Masser B. Vasovagal reactions in blood donors: risks, prevention and management. Transfus Med. 2019 Apr;29 Suppl 1:13-22. doi: 10.1111/tme.12488. Epub 2017 Nov 16. PMID: 29148259. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenMany of these reactions can be prevented by proper pre-donation counselling, efficient and stress-free phlebotomists, systemic organisation to provide a proper donation environment.
“Many of these reactions can be prevented by proper pre dontion counselling, efficient and stress free phlebotomists due to overcowding in camps, systemic organisation to provide a proper donation environment so that the donor can have good donation experience with an aim to maintain donor retention.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Donor retention is directly linked with donor satisfaction and safety, and decreased satisfaction/safety will decrease repeat donations.
- Rests on an assumption: The decision to donate blood and return for further donations depends largely on positive donation experience.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenSome female donors might have decreased skin elasticity thus leading to extravasation.
“Some of the female donors might also have decreased skin elasticity thus leading to extravasation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenSight of blood is a major reason for VVR in donors who may have held back their apprehension of blood in predonation counseling.
“Sight of blood, although completely psychological, is also a major reason for VVR in donors who may have held back their apprehension of blood in predonation counseling.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenFirst time donation in an emergency and partial unwillingness for donation are major contributors to vasovagal reactions.
“First time donation in an emergency and partial unwillingness for donation are also major contributors in such cases.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningAlleviating the donor's apprehension and answering their queries lead to a comfortable donation experience thus reducing VVR.
“Alleviating the donor`s apprehension and answering their queries lead to a comfortable donation experience thus reducing VVR.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationFew studies documented that on average approximately 1% reactions occur before donation, 26% during or immediately after donation, 61% at the refreshment table, and 12% offsite usually within 1 hour.
“Few studies documented that on an average approximate 1% reactions occur before donation, 26% AE occur during or immediately after donation, 61% occur at the refreshment table and 12 % occur offsite usually within 1 hour (10).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [10] 10. Abhishekh B, Mayadevi. S, Usha KC. Adverse Reactions to Blood Donation. Innovative Journal of Medical and Health Science 2013:158 -160.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningThe higher rate of hematoma in males cannot be attributed to improper technique as phlebotomists in our blood center have experience of years.
“This higher rate can not be attributed to improper technique as phlebotomists in our blood center have experience of years.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningExtravasation was seen slightly more frequently in males in voluntary and replacement donation, most likely due to learning attempts at phlebotomy by laboratory technology trainees.
“Extravasation was seen slightly more frequently in males in voluntary and replacement donation most likely due to learning attempts at phlebotomy by laboratory technology trainees.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningA chaotic environment in some donation camps may have led to higher incidence of hematoma.
“However, a chaotic environment in some donation camps may have led to higher incidence of hematoma.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningStress on account of patients' health can be a contributing factor to vasovagal reactions in replacement donors.
“Stress on account of their patients' health, can be a contributing factor.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningReasons for a higher incidence of extravasation of blood in donation camps are more or less same as that for hematomas.
“Reasons for a higher incidence of extravasation of blood in donation camps are more or less same as that for hematomas.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenStudy of blood donation adverse events vary among different countries.
“Study of the blood donation adverse events vary among different”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSION: · plain
“Study of the blood donation adverse events vary among different countries.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Also stated in: § CONCLUSION: · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenPrevailing obesity in males because of poor lifestyle choices causes difficulty in finding proper veins thus forming hematomas.
“Prevailing obesity in males because of poor lifestyle choices causes difficulty in finding proper veins thus forming hematomas.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningMales developed hematomas more frequently, most likely due to restlessness and overexcitement.
“In our study, males developed hematomas more frequently, most likely due to restlessness and overexcitement.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningVVR, although mostly mild, if managed promptly will ease the prevailing apprehension against blood donation in society.
“VVR although are mostly mild, if managed promptly will ease the prevailing apprehension against blood donation in society.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationNewman et al reported a very high frequency of bruises in 15.1% of donors.
“Newman et al reported a very high frequency of bruises in 15.1% of donors ( 27) while Agnihotri et al determined hematoma as an adverse event in 35% of all reactions (7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [27] 27. Newman BH, Waxman DA. Blood donation-related neurologic needle injury: evaluation of 2 years' worth of data from a large blood center. Transfusion 1996 ;36(3):213-215. doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1996.36396182137.x. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationNewman BH found that the underlying causes of hematoma could be faulty technique, untrained phlebotomists and failure to select an appropriate vein.
“Newman BH found that the underlying c a u s e s c o u l d b e t h e f a u l t y t e c h n i q u e, u n t ra i n e d phlebotomists and failure to select an appropriate vein (27).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [27] 27. Newman BH, Waxman DA. Blood donation-related neurologic needle injury: evaluation of 2 years' worth of data from a large blood center. Transfusion 1996 ;36(3):213-215. doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1996.36396182137.x. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe study was approved by the local ethical committee.
“The study was approved by the local ethical committee .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPathak et al reported 0.07% events of hematoma post donation.
“Pathak et al reported 0.07% events of hematoma post donation (2), Sultan S et al reported 2% events of needle injury post donation(6).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [2] 2. Pathak C, Pujani M, Pahuja S, Jain M. Adverse reactions in whole blood donors: an Indian scenario. Blood Transfus 2011;9: 46-9. doi: 10.2450/2010.0002-10 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitationCriteria for selection of whole blood donors and the donor questionnaire & consent form were in accordance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
“Criteria for the selection of whole blood donors and the donor questionnaire & consent form were in accordance with the rules laid down in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (11).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [11] 11. Eder AF, Hillyer CD, Dy BA. Adverse reactions to allogeneic whole blood donation by 16-and 17-year[1]olds. JAMA 2008; 299: 2279-86. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.19.2279. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSultan S et al reported 2% events of needle injury post donation.
“Pathak et al reported 0.07% events of hematoma post donation (2), Sultan S et al reported 2% events of needle injury post donation(6).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [6] 6. Sultan S, Baig MA , Irfan SM , Ahmed SI, Hasan SF. Adverse Reactions in Allogeneic Blood Donors: A Tertiary Care Experience from a Developing C o u n t r y. O m a n M e d i c a l J o u r n a l 2 0 1 6 ; 3 1 ( 2 ) : 1 2 4 -1 2 8 . d o i : 10.5001/omj.2016.24. source
The paper relies on this without support.
Donor retention is directly linked with donor satisfaction and safety, and decreased satisfaction/safety will decrease repeat donations.
“Donor retention is directly linked with donor satisfaction and safety, which will otherwise decrease the rate of repeat donations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The decision to donate blood and return for further donations depends largely on positive donation experience.
“The decision to donate blood and return for further donations depends largely on positive donation experience.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The donor records and adverse event categorization accurately capture all adverse events during or immediately after donation.
“All the donor records were maintained and stored in both the electronic and the file.Adverse events pertaining to whole blood donation were recorded and retrieved subsequently.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The study population is representative of allogeneic blood donors in Central India.
“This retrospective observational study was conducted in allogeneic blood donors coming in the Blood Center of a tertiary care hospital in Central India.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Extravasation percentage is substantially understated
MajorThe reported 306 cases among 95,483 donors represent about 0.32%, not 0.01%.
Reported 0.01 · recomputed 0.320476
“Hematoma developed in 506(0.5%)donors and extravasation of blood and nerve injury were seen in 306(0.01%)and 19(0.01%)donors respectively in the present study.”
Male and female adverse-event counts exceed the stated total
MinorThe abstract reports 1,100 female and 750 male donors with adverse events, which sum to 1,850 rather than 1,805. The table later gives the male count as 705.
Reported 1805 · recomputed 1850
“Overall, 1805 donors (1.89%) experienced adverse events with mean age of 36.0±6.3 years.Female donors who experienced adverse events were more than male donors ( n = 1100 vs.750).”
Cites
Trouern‐Trend, J. J., Cable, R. G., Badon, S. J., Newman, B. H., & Popovsky, M. A. (1999) · Transfusion · doi:10.1046/j.1537-2995.1999.39399219291.x · Cited by 208 · see citing works
The consequences of temporary deferral on future whole blood donation
Custer, B., Chinn, A., Hirschler, N. V., Busch, M. P., & Murphy, E. L. (2007) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2007.01292.x · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Adverse Reactions to Allogeneic Whole Blood Donation by 16- and 17-Year-Olds
Eder, A. F. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.19.2279 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Blood donor satisfaction and intention of future donation
Nguyen, D., DeVita, D. A., Hirschler, N. V., et al. (2008) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2007.01600.x · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Wiltbank, T. B., Giordano, G. F., Kamel, H., Tomasulo, P., & Custer, B. (2008) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01745.x · Cited by 149 · see citing works
The American Red Cross donor hemovigilance program: complications of blood donation reported in 2006
Eder, A. F., Dy, B. A., Kennedy, J. M., Notari IV, E. P., Strupp, A., Wissel, M. E., Reddy, R., Gibble, J., Haimowitz, M. D., Newman, B. H., et al. (2008) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01811.x · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Donor reactions and injuries from whole blood donation
Newman, B. H. (1997) · Transfusion Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0887-7963(97)80011-9 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Newman, B. H., & Waxman, D. A. (1996) · Transfusion · doi:10.1046/j.1537-2995.1996.36396182137.x · Cited by 105 · see citing works
A Study of Criteria for Blood Donor Deferral
Tomasulo, P. A., Anderson, A. J., Paluso, M. B., Gutschenritter, M. A., & Aster, R. H. (1980) · Transfusion · doi:10.1046/j.1537-2995.1980.20581034503.x · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Donation reactions among autologous donors
McVay, P. A., Andrews, A., Kaplan, E. B., Black, D. B., Stehling, L. C., Strauss, R. G., & Toy, P. T. C. Y. (1990) · Transfusion · doi:10.1046/j.1537-2995.1990.30390194347.x · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Vasovagal reactions in blood donors: risks, prevention and management
Thijsen, A., & Masser, B. (2019) · Transfusion Medicine · doi:10.1111/tme.12488 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Blood donor complications after whole-blood donation
Newman, B. H. (2004) · Current Opinion in Hematology · doi:10.1097/01.moh.0000142105.21058.96 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Easy come, easy go. Retention of blood donors
van Dongen, A. (2015) · Transfusion Medicine · doi:10.1111/tme.12249 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Adverse reactions in blood and apheresis donors: experience from two Italian transfusion centres.
(2009) · PubMed Central · doi:10.2450/2008.0018-08 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Marwaha, N., Agnihotri, N., & Sharma, R. (2012) · Asian Journal of Transfusion Science · doi:10.4103/0973-6247.98922 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Complications related to blood donation: a population‐based study
Sørensen, B. S., Johnsen, S. P., & Jørgensen, J. O. L. (2007) · Vox Sanguinis · doi:10.1111/j.1423-0410.2007.01000.x · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Crocco, A., & D'Elia, D. (2007) · PubMed · doi:10.2450/2007.0005-07 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Do reactions after whole blood donation predict syncope on return donation?
Eder, A. F., Notari, E. P., & Dodd, R. Y. (2012) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03666.x · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Adverse reactions in whole blood donors: an Indian scenario.
(2011) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · doi:10.2450/2010.0002-10 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Adverse Reactions in Allogeneic Blood Donors: A Tertiary Care Experience from a Developing Country
(2016) · Oman Medical Journal · doi:10.5001/omj.2016.24 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Adverse reactions to blood donations: the READ project.
(2010) · PubMed Central · doi:10.2450/2009.0089-09 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
[Adverse reactions of blood donation].
Guerra, M. J., Vaz, M. J., & Silva, O. (2002) · PubMed · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Vuk, T., Cipek, V., & Jukić, I. (2015) · PubMed Central · doi:10.2450/2014.0216-14 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
de Almeida‐Neto, C. (2011) · Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia · doi:10.5581/1516-8484.20110046 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Adverse Donor Reaction During and Immediately After Venesection
Mahbub-ul-Alam, M., Hyder, M. S., Khan, M. K., & Islam, M. A. (1970) · TAJ: Journal of Teachers Association · doi:10.3329/taj.v20i1.3088 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Mangwana, S. (2013) · Journal of Pathology of Nepal · doi:10.3126/jpn.v3i6.8993 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Chowdhury, F., Siddiqui, M., Rahman, K., Begum, H., Begum, H., Hoque, M., & Nasreen, Z. (2013) · Bangladesh Journal of Medicine · doi:10.3329/bjmed.v22i2.13589 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [19]19. Crocco I, Franchini M, Gandini G, Gandini AR. Frequency of adverse events during blood and apheresis donations: a single center based study. Transfusions medizin 2002; 29: 200-5. doi: 10.2450/2008.0018-08. · DOI
- [21]21. Ryhan R , Sawhney V , Sidhu M , Handoo S. Study of Adverse Donor Reactions in Whole Blood Donors in a Tertiary Care Hospital. International Journal of Health Sciences & Research 2017;7(3); 56-64 ISSN: 2249-9571
- Authors
- Bhushan, R., Gupta, P., Mehra, A., & Iyengar, S.
- Affiliations
- Gajara Raja Medical College (IN)
- ORCID
- Gupta, Prakriti
- Venue
- PARIPEX-Indian Journal of Research
- Publisher
- World Wide Journals
- Published
- 2023-07-15
- Pages
- 7-10
- ISSN
- 2250-1991 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4385463302
- Semantic Scholar
- a90dbd9ca87da1d55ee3f2b2b137508472eca310
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- PARIPEX-INDIAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH (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 › Organ Donation and Transplantation
- Keywords
- vasovagal reaction, hematoma, extravasation, nerve injury, donor retention, voluntary blood donation, replacement donors, blood donation camps
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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
