Therapeutic phlebotomy also known as venesection or bloodletting is the therapeutic removal of blood from the body that has been practiced since ancient times to treat illnesses [1]. It began in Egypt around 3000 years ago then spread around the world [2, 3]. Its use gradually declined in the late 19th century and it was almost abandoned during the 20th century [4, 5]. In the past, bloodletting was practiced using lancets, cupping, and the application of leeches for localized bleeding to virtually treat illnesses [6, 5]. At present day, however, therapeutic phlebotomy is being used in modern medicine as an essential part of the treatment for various disorders including hemochromatosis, polycythemia vera and porphyria cutanea tarda [7]. Despite significant advances in conventional medicine, there is a high prevalence and increased public interest Background and objectives: Therapeutic phlebotomy is the removal of blood from the body that has been practiced since ancient time for treating illnesses. Recently, interest in wet-cupping to treat various hematological disorders particularly polycythemia in public has grown. The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wet-cupping versus blood donation on hematological parameters. Methods: In this pre and post-test experimental study, a total of 60 healthy young adults were purposively assigned non-randomly either in cupping (n=30) or blood donation (n=30) groups. Blood samples were collected from all subjects to measure hematological parameters before and one week after interventions. Subjects of wet-cupping and blood donation were matched in age and baseline hematological parameters. The hematological parameters were analyzed using hematology analyzer (Symex, Japan). Results: The findings of the study showed a significant difference in hematological parameters of wet-cupping and blood donation including hemoglobin level (Hb) (14.87 g/dl vs. 14.39 g/dl), packed cell volume (PCV) (44.78 % vs. 42.91 %), and red blood cell (RBC) (5.27 1012/uL vs. 4.94 1012/uL), respectively. While the values of other parameters were not different significantly; mean cell volume (MCV) (85.15 fl vs. 86.95 fl), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH) (28.31 pg vs. 29.20 pg), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) (33.24 g/dl vs. 33.57 g/dl), red cell distribution width (RDW) (12.53 % vs. 12.40 %), platelet (245.77 109/L vs. 246.27 109/L), and white blood cell (WBC) (7.47 109/ L vs. 7.47 109/L), respectively. Conclusion: The present study concluded that both wet-cupping and blood donation are effective interventions in reducing HB, PCV, and RBC along with increase platelets in blood donation only.
Background: Communities around the world have expressed concern about the safety and side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The adverse effects of the Covid-19 vaccines played a critical role in public trust in the vaccines. The current study aimed to provide evidence on the side effects of the BNT163b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech®); ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AstraZeneca®); BBIBP-CorVvaccine (Sinopharm®) COVID-19 vaccines. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study design was performed from April 26th, 2021, to June 3rd, 2021. Convenience sampling was used to select respondents; face validity was performed to the mandatory multiple-choice items questionnaire to cover the respondent’s demographic characteristics, coronavirus-19 related anamneses, and the side effect duration of coronavirus-19 vaccines, the data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. Results: The 588 participants enrolled in the current study. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine received 49.7%, followed by BNT163b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and BBIBP-CorV (39.5% and 10.9%). The most common complaint was headache (61.2%), followed by vaccine injection site discomfort (58.8%), fatigue (49.7%), fever (48.3%), muscle discomfort (42.9%), and approximately (10.5% and 10.2%) had injection site swelling and nausea, respectively. Most of those surveyed had post-vaccine symptoms for one to two days (25.2%), (41%), and only a small percentage (3.7%) experienced them for over one month. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine handled 53% of the side effects, followed by BNT163b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (42%) and BBIBP-CorV vaccines (5%). Conclusion: Prevalence of various local and systemic vaccines side effects, such as headache, fever, and pain at the injection site, was observed. Almost all participants had mild symptoms and were well-tolerated .AstraZeneca® vaccine has the most side effects, followed by the Pfizer® vaccine, and the Sinopharm® vaccine has the least. More independent studies on vaccination safety and public awareness are critical to improving public trust in vaccines. Keywords: COVID-19; Vaccines; Side effects; Prevalence; Cross-sectional design.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.