Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Irregular red blood cell (RBC) antibodies are antibodies other than naturally occurring anti-A and anti-B. Although the global prevalence of these antibodies is relatively low, ranging from 0.2% to 2%, donors who have irregular RBC antibodies can present immunological risk for patients due to hemolytic transfusion reactions. Hence, it is imperative to determine the prevalence of these antibodies in resource-limited settings where laboratory infrastructure for screening is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence and factors associated with irregular RBC antibodies among blood donors in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted from 01 st April to 31 st May 2024. Random sampling was used to select participants. The data were summarized by using frequency and percentage for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation for continuous variables. The logistic regression model was used to assess the relationship between the presence of irregular RBC antibodies and the independent variables. A p -value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results A total of 501 blood donors were enrolled in the study. The participants had a mean age of 32 years and a standard deviation (SD) of 9.48. The majority, 65.3% of participants, were male, and 83.6% had no history of blood transfusion. The overall prevalence of irregular RBC antibodies was 7.6% (95% CI 5.5%−10.3%). Being female (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.4, 95% CI 1.72–6.85), age over 40 years (aOR 4.4, 95% CI 1.29–15.00), and having a history of blood transfusion (aOR 3.1, 95% CI 1.53–6.42) were significantly associated with irregular RBC antibodies. Conclusion The present study revealed a relatively high prevalence of irregular RBC antibodies among eligible blood donors in Tanzania. Therefore, these findings highlight the need for enhanced practices in screening and the prudent use of blood and blood products in Tanzania.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Monah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: