Vox sanguinis · 2023
Safety and protection of plasma donors: A scoping review and evidence gap map.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schroyens Natalie, D'aes Tine, De Buck Emmy, Mikkelsen Susan, Tiberghien Pierre, van den Hurk Katja, Erikstrup Christian, Compernolle Veerle, Van Remoortel Hans
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As part of a large-scale project to safely increase plasma collection in Europe, the current scoping review identifies the existing evidence (gaps) on adverse events (AEs) and other health effects in plasmapheresis donors, as well as factors that may be associated with such events/effects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched six databases and three registries. Study characteristics (publication type, language, study design, population, outcomes, associated factors, time of assessment, duration of follow-up, number and frequency of donations, convalescent plasma [y/n], setting and location) were synthesized narratively and in an interactive evidence gap map (EGM).
RESULTS: Ninety-four research articles and five registrations were identified. Around 90% were observational studies (57 controlled and 33 uncontrolled), and most of them were performed in Europe (55%) or the United States (20%). Factors studied in association with donor health included donor characteristics (e.g., sex, age) (n = 27), cumulative number of donations (n = 21), donation frequency (n = 11), plasma collection device or programme (n = 11), donor status (first time vs. repeat) (n = 10), donation volume per session (n = 8), time in donation programme (n = 3), preventive measures (n = 2) or other (n = 9).
CONCLUSION: The current scoping review provides an accessible tool for researchers and policymakers to identify the available evidence (gaps) concerning plasmapheresis donation safety. Controlled prospective studies with long-term donor follow-up are scarce. Furthermore, additional experimental studies comparing the health effects of different donation frequencies are required to inform a safe upper limit for donation frequency.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched six databases and three registries. Study characteristics (publication type, language, study design, population, outcomes, associated factors, time of assessment, duration of follow-up, number and frequency of donations, convalescent plasma [y/n], setting and location) were synthesized narratively and in an interactive evidence gap map (EGM).
RESULTS: Ninety-four research articles and five registrations were identified. Around 90% were observational studies (57 controlled and 33 uncontrolled), and most of them were performed in Europe (55%) or the United States (20%). Factors studied in association with donor health included donor characteristics (e.g., sex, age) (n = 27), cumulative number of donations (n = 21), donation frequency (n = 11), plasma collection device or programme (n = 11), donor status (first time vs. repeat) (n = 10), donation volume per session (n = 8), time in donation programme (n = 3), preventive measures (n = 2) or other (n = 9).
CONCLUSION: The current scoping review provides an accessible tool for researchers and policymakers to identify the available evidence (gaps) concerning plasmapheresis donation safety. Controlled prospective studies with long-term donor follow-up are scarce. Furthermore, additional experimental studies comparing the health effects of different donation frequencies are required to inform a safe upper limit for donation frequency.