↓ Skip to main content

Low Titer Group O Whole Blood in Emergency Situations

Overview of attention for article published in Shock, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
patent
12 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Low Titer Group O Whole Blood in Emergency Situations
Published in
Shock, May 2014
DOI 10.1097/shk.0000000000000150
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geir Strandenes, Olle Berséus, Andrew P. Cap, Tor Hervig, Michael Reade, Nicolas Prat, Anne Sailliol, Richard Gonzales, Clayton D. Simon, Paul Ness, Heidi A. Doughty, Philip C. Spinella, Einar K. Kristoffersen

Abstract

In past and ongoing military conflicts, the use of whole blood (WB) as a resuscitative product to treat trauma-induced shock and coagulopathy has been widely accepted as an alternative when availability of a balanced component-based transfusion strategy is restricted or lacking. In previous military conflicts, ABO group O blood from donors with low titers of anti-A/B blood group antibodies was favored. Now, several policies demand the exclusive use of ABO group-specific WB. In this short review, we argue that the overall risks, dangers, and consequences of "the ABO group-specific approach," in emergencies, make the use of universal group O WB from donors with low titers of anti-A/B safer. Generally, risks with ABO group-specific transfusions are associated with in vivo destruction of the red blood cells transfused. The risk with group O WB is from the plasma transfused to ABO-incompatible patients. In the civilian setting, the risk of clinical hemolytic transfusion reactions (HTRs) due to ABO group-specific red blood cell transfusions is relatively low (approximately 1:80,000), but the consequences are frequently severe. Civilian risk of HTRs due to plasma incompatible transfusions, using titered donors, is approximately 1:120,000 but usually of mild to moderate severity. Emergency settings are often chaotic and resource limited, factors well known to increase the potential for human errors. Using ABO group-specific WB in emergencies may delay treatment because of needed ABO typing, increase the risk of clinical HTRs, and increase the severity of these reactions as well as increase the danger of underresuscitation due to lack of some ABO groups. When the clinical decision has been made to transfuse WB in patients with life-threatening hemorrhagic shock, we recommend the use of group O WB from donors with low anti-A/B titers when logistical constraints preclude the rapid availability of ABO group-specific WB and reliable group matching between donor and recipient is not feasible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 31 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2024.
All research outputs
#4,759,600
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Shock
#242
of 3,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,128
of 242,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Shock
#9
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,259 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.