↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of hemoglobin S trait among blood donors: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Prevalence of hemoglobin S trait among blood donors: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1583-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel Antwi-Baffour, Ransford Owiredu Asare, Jonathan Kofi Adjei, Ransford Kyeremeh, David Nana Adjei

Abstract

Sickle cell trait (SCT) or Hemoglobin S (HbS) trait which is due to inheritance of an abnormal hemoglobin (Hb) gene from one parent and a normal gene from the other has been known to be common among people of African descent. Individuals with SCT may find themselves in the blood donor population without knowing their 'carrier' status and this may have severe consequences on their health as well as that of a recipient, particularly if they happen to be a sickle cell disease patient. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of HbS trait among blood donors. This cross-sectional study employed convenience sampling method to recruit subjects. A total of 150 prospective and healthy blood donors comprising 138 males and 12 females were involved in the study. Two (2) ml of venous blood was collected from each donor into K3EDTA tubes and analyzed using the sodium metabisulphite slide test and cellulose acetate Hb electrophoresis at alkaline pH (8.6) for Hb genotypes. Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20.0 (SPSS 20.0) and Chi square were used to analyse the data obtained. Out of the 150 blood donors, 133 (88.7 %) tested negative for sickling (131 were genotype AA and 2 were AC) and 17 (11.3 %) tested positive for sickling, all of whom were genotype AS. The results of the study showed the existence of SCT among the blood donor population sampled. Taking blood from such people can harm their health as well as that of the recipient if they happen to be sickle cell disease (SCD) patients. It is therefore recommended that blood donors as well as donated blood units should be screened for SCT to avoid causing any harm to both the donor and recipient.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 12 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 August 2016.
All research outputs
#7,081,470
of 8,183,022 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,678
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,386
of 257,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#68
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,183,022 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 257,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.