Predonation hydration and applied muscle tension combine to reduce presyncopal reactions to blood donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the effects of hydration and applied muscle tensing on presyncopal reactions to blood donation. Both interventions are designed to prevent the decreases in blood pressure that can contribute to such reactions, but due to the distinct physiologic mechanisms underlying their pressor responses it was hypothesized that a combined intervention would yield the greatest benefit. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Before blood donation, first- and second-time blood donors (mean age, 20.2 years; SD, 4.9) were randomly assigned to 1) standard donation, 2) placebo (leg exercise before venipuncture), 3) predonation water, or 4) predonation water and leg exercise during donation. RESULTS: Main effects of group were observed for phlebotomist classification of vasovagal reactions (chi(2)(3) = 8.38, p < 0.05) and donor reports of presyncopal reactions (chi(2)(3) = 13.16, p < 0.01). Follow-up analyses of phlebotomist classifications revealed fewer reactions in the predonation water and predonation water and leg exercise groups relative to placebo but not standard donation. Follow-up analyses of self-reported reactions revealed that women, but not men, had lower scores in both the predonation water and the predonation water and leg exercise groups relative to both placebo and standard donation. CONCLUSIONS: Predonation hydration and a combination of hydration and leg exercise may help attenuate presyncopal reactions in relatively novice donors, although future studies with larger samples are required to confirm this effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".