Skip to main content
. 2010 Jun 16;2010(6):CD007539. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007539.pub2

Summary of findings 2.

Acetaminophen plus Diphenhydrammine versus placebo (Unit of randomisation: transfusion) for requirement of prophylaxis to avoid allergic and febrile non‐haemolytic transfusion reactions

Acetaminophen plus Diphenhydrammine versus placebo (Unit of randomisation: transfusion) for requirement of prophylaxis to avoid allergic and febrile non‐haemolytic transfusion reactions
Patient or population: patients with requirement of prophylaxis to avoid allergic and febrile non‐haemolytic transfusion reactions Settings: Hospital Intervention: Acetaminophen plus Diphenhydrammine versus placebo (Unit of randomisation: transfusion)
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) No of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Control Acetaminophen plus Diphenhydrammine versus placebo (Unit of randomisation: transfusion)
Fever ‐ Per protocol analysis Study population RR 1.77 (0.57 to 5.49) 98 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2,3
87 per 1000 154 per 1000 (50 to 478)
Medium risk population
87 per 1000 154 per 1000 (50 to 478)
Anaphylatic reactions ‐ not reported Study population RR 0 (0 to 0) 0 (0) See comment
See comment See comment
Medium risk population
Hives ‐ Per protocol analysis Study population RR 0.13 (0.01 to 2.39) 98 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2
65 per 1000 8 per 1000 (1 to 155)
Medium risk population
65 per 1000 8 per 1000 (1 to 155)
Death ‐ not reported Study population RR 0 (0 to 0) 0 (0) See comment
See comment See comment
Medium risk population
Adverse events Study population RR 0 (0 to 0) 0 (0) See comment
See comment See comment
Medium risk population
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Data on randomisation (sequence generation, allocation concealment) unavailable. 2 Not applicable (1 trial included) 3 Low event rate (36 reported)