ArticleAsian journal of transfusion science
Prevalence of hepatitis B and C markers in blood donors deferred from donating blood due to hepatitis-related risk factors.
Article in Asian journal of transfusion science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe donor selection criteria are developed to identify and defer the blood donors at risk of infections for an appropriate duration of time to allow time for the infectious agent to elicit an immune response for the purpose of diagnostic detection. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was an observational study to compare the prevalence of markers of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in 1000 donors deferred on hepatitis-related risk factors, with 62,328 donors selected for donations on quality-assured enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and individual unit nucleic acid testing (NAT).
resultsIn 1000 deferred donors, 8 (0.8%), 10 (1%), and 17 (1.7%) were reactive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies, and initial NAT; 8 (0.8%) and 7 (0.7%) discriminated against hepatitis B virus (HBV) and HCV, respectively. In 62,328 selected donors, 260 (0.4%), 267 (0.4%), and 76 (0.12%) were reactive for HBsAg, anti-HCV antibodies, and initial NAT; 26 (0.04%) and 8 (0.01%) discriminated against HBV and HCV, respectively. NAT yield was 4 (0.4%,
conclusionThe study highlights the need for surveillance of hepatitis-related risk factors in the potential blood donor population to generate evidence for periodic updates to the donor selection criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.