ArticleAmerican journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons2013
Reducing infection transmission in solid organ transplantation through donor nucleic acid testing: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dengue infection in kidney transplant recipients during a major epidemic and the implementation of systematic donor screening: a cohort study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Algorithms for the Testing of Tissue Donors for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2021Article
- Comparison of hepatitis C virus testing recommendations in high-income countries.World journal of hepatology · 2018Article
- Kidney allograft offers: Predictors of turndown and the impact of late organ acceptance on allograft survival.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2018Article
- Utilization of Public Health Service Increased Risk Donors Yields Equivalent Outcomes in Liver Transplantation.Journal of transplantation · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
For solid organ transplant (SOT) donors, nucleic acid-amplification testing (NAT) may reduce human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission over antibody (Ab) testing given its shorter detection window period. We compared SOT donor NAT + Ab versus Ab alone using decision models to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained) from the societal perspective across a range of HIV/HCV prevalence values and NAT costs. The cost per QALY gained was calculated for two scenarios: (1) favorable: low cost ($150/donor)/high prevalence (HIV: 1.5%; HCV: 18.2%) and (2) unfavorable: high cost ($500/donor)/low prevalence (HIV: 0.1%; HCV: 1.5%). In the favorable scenario, adding NAT screening cost $161 013 per QALY gained for HIV was less costly) for HCV, and cost $86 653 per QALY gained for HIV/HCV combined. For the unfavorable scenario, the costs were $15 568 484, $221 006 and $10 077 599 per QALY gained, respectively. Universal HCV NAT + Ab for donors appears cost-effective to reduce infection transmission from SOT donors, while HIV NAT + Ab is not, except where HIV NAT is ≤$150/donor and prevalence is ≥1.5%. Our analyses provide important data to facilitate the decision to implement HIV and HCV NAT for deceased SOT donors and shape national policy regarding how to reduce infection transmission in SOT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.