@article {4010,
	title = {Adverse effects in blood donors after whole-blood donation: a study of 1000 blood donors interviewed 3 weeks after whole-blood donation.},
	journal = {//Transfusion},
	volume = {43},
	year = {2003},
	month = {2003},
	pages = {598 - 603},
	publisher = {American Red Cross Blood Services, Southeastern Michigan Region, Detroit, Michigan.},
	address = {(C) 2003 Blackwell Science Ltd.},
	abstract = {BACKGROUND: There are no reports in the transfusion medicine literature that describe adverse reactions and donor arm injuries after whole-blood donation based on solicited information., STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The present study solicited adverse reaction and donor arm injury information from 1000 randomly selected whole-blood donors approximately 3 weeks after the whole-blood donation. Two 16-gauge phlebotomy needles in use were also compared., RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of the donors had one or more adverse effects (AEs). The most common systemic AEs were fatigue (7.8\%), vasovagal symptoms (5.3\%), and nausea and vomiting (1.1\%). The most common arm findings were bruise (22.7\%), arm soreness (10.0\%), and hematoma (1.7\%). Men were half as likely as women to have an AE (23\% AE vs. 48\% AE, p < 0.0001). Repeat blood donors had fewer AEs than first-time blood donors (36\% AE vs. 47\% AE, p < 0.007), and African-American donors had numbers of AEs similar to those of Caucasian donors (31\% AE vs. 38\% AE, p = 0.30). The two phlebotomy needles did not differ in causing blood donor AEs., CONCLUSION: AEs after donation and complaints may be more common than previously thought. The postdonation interview is a good tool for defining the blood donor{\textquoteright}s experience. It can also be used to evaluate and potentially improve blood donor safety and comfort., (C) 2003 Blackwell Science Ltd.},
	isbn = {0041-1132},
	author = {Newman, Bruce and Pichette, Shawn and Pichette, Dena and Dzaka, Ema}
}
