2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2004.04160.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantifying losses to the donated blood supply due to donor deferral and miscollection

Abstract: Loss of units from both first-time and repeat donors due to temporary deferral and loss of units from miscollection are more common events than losses due to disease marker testing. Some of these losses may be avoidable and could increase the blood supply without having to recruit new donors.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

18
114
4
3

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(139 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
18
114
4
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Our findings (36.3%) were much higher than Custer et al [7] who reported a permanent deferral rate of 10.6% and Arslan [9] who reported a rate of 10%. This high frequency was due to the inclusion of transfusion transmissible infection in our study especially Hepatitis B infection (HBV) which was not studied thoroughly in the above mentioned publications.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 55%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our findings (36.3%) were much higher than Custer et al [7] who reported a permanent deferral rate of 10.6% and Arslan [9] who reported a rate of 10%. This high frequency was due to the inclusion of transfusion transmissible infection in our study especially Hepatitis B infection (HBV) which was not studied thoroughly in the above mentioned publications.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 55%
“…Zou et al [6] reported a deferral rate of 12.8% in their 6 years study of American Red Cross blood service and Custer et al [7] showed a deferral rate of 13.6%. In a European study conducted by Lawson-Ayayi and Salmi [8], 10.8% of donors were deferred.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the deferrals (66.6%) were due to temporary causes such as anemia, medication, tattooing, previous donation less than three months ago as compared to permanent deferral causing 33.3% Custer et al reported 68.5% temporary and 31.5% permanent deferral [8]. Such temporarily deferred donors can be motivated to return back after proper education about deferral criteria.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More number of deferral was in temporary constituting 83.11% and permanent 16.89%. Custer et al [7] report 68.5% temporary and 31.5% permanent deferral [7]. In our study permanent deferral constituted only 16.89% which may be due to more number of younger donors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 38%
“…In our study the unsuccessful phlebotomy was only 0.31%. Whereas Farrales et al [10] reported a higher rate of 0.5% and Custer et al [7] reported mis-collection leading to 3.8% of 1001,141 collections. The deferral for young people would be different from the reasons for older ones.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%