ArticleVox sanguinis2026
Evaluating blood donation safety for donors with sickle cell trait.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating blood donation safety for donors with sickle cell trait.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesFinding compatible blood donors for patients from minority racial and ethnic populations can be challenging due to differences in blood group antigen frequencies with the existing donor pool. Individuals with sickle cell trait (SCTrait) are allowed to donate in some countries, but in the Netherlands, carriers are currently not permitted to donate. This study estimates the incidence of adverse events among SCTrait donors compared with non-SCTrait donors, to inform potential policy decisions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective study was performed at Sanquin, including whole-blood (WB) and plasma donors, from 2012 to 2024. Adverse events related to donation were compared between SCTrait donors (identified retrospectively) and a control group of non-SCTrait donors. Donor complications included systemic events, such as vasovagal reactions (VVRs), and venipuncture-related complications.
resultsA total of 259 donations from 47 SCTrait donors and 2590 donations from 1371 non-SCTrait donors were analysed. The overall rate of donor complications was low in both groups, with no differences observed between SCTrait and non-SCTrait donors. VVR rates were 2.4% versus 2.7% in WB donations and 2.2% versus 1.0% in plasma donations for SCTrait versus non-SCTrait donors, respectively (p > 0.05). Separation issues, like filter squirting in the plasma collection set, occurred in 10.0% of plasma donations from SCTrait donors versus 0.5% in non-SCTrait donors (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe low incidence of adverse events among SCTrait donors suggests that blood donation is safe in this group. However, filter-related issues do occur more frequently, and thus remain a point of concern.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.