Evidence mapPaperPMID 34469010Full record

ArticleTransfusion2021

Hospital transfusion service operations during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Lessons learned from the AABB hospital survey in preparation for the next infectious disease outbreak.

Srijana Rajbhandary, Aaron Shmookler, Claudia S Cohn, Eduardo Nunes, Matthew S Karafin, James Stubbs, Monica B Pagano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transfusion, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Using automation to manage donor engagement and fine-tune supply and demand during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Srijana RajbhandaryAABB, Research, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Aaron ShmooklerWVU, Pathology, Anatomy and Laboratory Medicine, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7789-7184
Claudia S CohnLab Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9847-0470
Eduardo NunesAABB, Research, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Matthew S KarafinUniversity of North Carolina System, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
James StubbsMayo Clinic Rochester, Transfusion Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3270-4913
Monica B PaganoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5183-6471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic disrupted hospital operations, affected the blood supply, and challenged the health care system to develop new therapeutic options, including convalescent plasma (CCP). The aim of this study is to describe and analyze blood supply fluctuations and the use of convalescent plasma in 2020.

methodsAABB distributed a weekly and biweekly questionnaire through email to hospital-based members (HBM).

resultsThe survey was sent to 887 HBM with 479 unique respondents, most of the hospitals served pediatric and adult patients, and all states of the country participated, except Idaho and Vermont. Fifty four percent of HBM reported increased wastage in the early phase of the pandemic (May), which decreased to 4% by the end of June and throughout the rest of the year. The majority of HBM reported receiving alerts from their blood suppliers reporting blood shortages throughout the year. During March and April, only 12% of HBM were performing elective surgical procedures. The top reasons to delay procedures were: bed availability (28%); COVID-19 caseload (23%; and blood availability (19%). By mid-April, 42% HBM had transfused CCP and reported >24 h delay in getting the units; the vast majority obtained CCP using the Expanded Access Protocol, and later, the Emergency Use Authorization. HBM consistently prioritized the most severe patients to receive CCP, but the proportion of severely ill recipients fell from 52% to 37% between May and October, with an increase from 5% to 21% of HBM providing CCP transfusion early in the course of the disease. DISCUSSION: Blood utilization and availability fluctuated during the pandemic. The fluctuations appeared to be related to the number of COVID-19 in the community. The use and regulatory landscape of CCP rapidly evolved over the first 8 months of the pandemic.

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesAdultCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleblood supplyblood transfusionshospital operationspandemictransfusion services

Identifiers

PMID34469010
PMCPMC8661942

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.