Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42333614›Full record

ArticleTransfusion2026

Donor mobilization during U.S. mass casualty and disaster events: Differential effects on whole blood and apheresis platelet supply.

Umesh Singh, Bethany Brown, Pampee P Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transfusion, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Umesh SinghAmerican Red Cross, Biomedical Services, Medical and Scientific Office, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1830-6262
Bethany BrownAmerican Red Cross, Biomedical Services, Medical and Scientific Office, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8595-8856
Pampee P YoungAmerican Red Cross, Biomedical Services, Medical and Scientific Office, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5313-0376

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMass casualty and disaster events (MCEs) and national blood donation appeals generate surges in blood donation, but how these responses differ by product type, donor demographics, and retention remains incompletely understood, particularly for apheresis platelets. STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsWe analyzed donation data from five major U.S. MCEs and five national blood donation appeals between 2000 and 2024, characterizing whole blood (WB) and platelet donations by donor age, first-time versus repeat status, and return within 1 year.

resultsWB donation demonstrated rapid, high-amplitude surges during MCEs that resolved within 1-2 weeks, driven in part by younger and first-time donors. In contrast, appeals produced smaller increases sustained through the duration of the appeal. Platelet donation followed a distinct pattern, with a smaller, yet slightly longer surge response during MCEs and more robust increases during national blood donation appeals, while both relied almost exclusively on older, repeat donors. Donor retention differed primarily by donor history. Repeat donors were substantially more likely to return than first-time donors across age groups and event types, with older repeat donors showing the highest retention. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight structural differences between WB and platelet donor systems with direct implications for disaster preparedness and long-term blood supply resilience in the United States.

Indexed as

Blood Component RemovalBlood DonorsBlood PlateletsDisastersMass Casualty IncidentsPlateletpheresisAdultBlood DonationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42333614
PMCPMC13569201

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.