Prevalence of Post Donation Adverse Donor Reactions in a Medical College Hospital at Dhaka
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Adequate blood supply that must be safe depends on healthy and also with altruistic volunteers who are inclined to donate blood regardless of the potential risk of discomfort or adverse reactions. Blood donation has an tremendous safety record and most of the donors have a good experience or only a mild symptoms after donation. Although even a very low rate of reactions may pessimistic affect their inclination to donate again. The main aim of our study was to calculate the adverse donor reactions among the blood donors in a tertiary care hospital. Methods: We conducted a prospective study between January to December of 2018 in Department of Transfusion Medicine of Sir Salimullah Medical College Hospital, Dhaka. Knowledgeable medical attendants drew blood from selected donors under guidance of a Medical Officer. All donors were observed during and after the procedure of blood donation for any adverse effect up to 30 minutes. Donors were asked to contact the department if they fill any adverse reaction afterwards. Results: A total of 10056 blood donors were registered to donate blood and of them 9453 (94.004%) were eligible for donation. Among 9453 eligible donors a total of 360 (3.8%) donors experienced adverse reactions. The incidence was 1 in every 27 donations. Majority of donors 101 (28.05%) who experienced adverse effect is of age group of 18-25 years with female predominance 192 (53.33%). Among the 360 donors 151(41.94%) developed vasovagal reactions, 83(23.05%) felt nauseated or vomited, 51(14.1%) hyperventilated, 25 (6.94%) cope with delayed syncope, 22 (6.11%) felt dizziness, 18 (5%) formed a hematoma around site of needle prick and 10 (2.77%) others developed problems with blood flow. No delayed donor reactions were recorded. First time donors have higher frequency 479 (79.43%) of adverse reactions than repeat donors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".