2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.htct.2019.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Background Blood transfusion is a life-saving procedure, but may cause adverse transfusion reactions (TRs). The reporting of TRs is often missed due to various reasons. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of unreported acute TRs through active surveillance and to compare it with the incidence of passively reported TRs. Methods This prospective observational study was done over a period of four months at a tertiary care hospital. A total of 500 consecuti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(33 reference statements)
0
10
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Fourth, while our active surveillance approach is a strength of our study in that it is proven to more frequently and accurately detect transfusion reaction incidence, 36,[51][52][53] it does introduce the very real possibility of observer bias. While analogous posttransfusion monitoring and reporting for reactions is a required component of the EAP protocol, this was conducted via passive surveillance, in which the protocol organizers relied on reports sent by transfusing institutions, an approach known to lead to significant underreporting of transfusion reactions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fourth, while our active surveillance approach is a strength of our study in that it is proven to more frequently and accurately detect transfusion reaction incidence, 36,[51][52][53] it does introduce the very real possibility of observer bias. While analogous posttransfusion monitoring and reporting for reactions is a required component of the EAP protocol, this was conducted via passive surveillance, in which the protocol organizers relied on reports sent by transfusing institutions, an approach known to lead to significant underreporting of transfusion reactions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Blood product transfusions are not benign interventions. In people who receive blood product transfusions, the incidence of acute transfusion reaction (an adverse reaction occurring within the first 24 hours of transfusion administration) is between 0.04% and 1.8%, 1–5 with febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTRs) being the most common transfusion reaction (TR) observed 3,4,6–8 . Leukocytes and leukocyte‐derived cytokines in blood products are suggested to be involved in the pathogenesis of FNHTRs 9–14 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comparisons of these results with other studies are challenged by differences in patient populations and the haemovigilance system (from definitions used, to mandates that may either favour sensitivity [inclusivity to prevent underestimates], or specificity [exclusivity to reduce overestimates and unnecessary donor deferrals]) [10,21,22,24–27,35]. We examined the effects of definitional stringency on TRs to discern shifts in representation and outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Incidences can vary significantly with age, as shown by TR incidences in paediatric, obstetric and other adult populations [21–23]. Case ascertainment may vary by orders of magnitude between passive (voluntary) to more active (mandatory or electronic) systems [24–26]. Available case information and the diagnostic criteria for a given definition may also yield different classification outputs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%