ArticleBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2014
The results of nucleic acid testing in remunerated and non-remunerated blood donors in Lithuania.
Article in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Initial trends of individual donation nucleic acid testing in voluntary & replacement donors from a tertiary care centre in north India.The Indian journal of medical research · 2019Article
- Medical and laboratory assessment for regular blood donors in Sulaimani Blood Bank, Iraq.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Selection strategies for newly registered blood donors in European countries.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Lithuania, governmentally covered remuneration for whole blood donations prevails. Donors may choose to accept or reject the remuneration. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of nucleic acid testing (NAT) discriminatory-positive markers for human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) in seronegative, first-time and repeat, remunerated and non-remunerated donations at the National Blood Centre in Lithuania during the period from 2005 to 2010. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll seronegative whole blood and blood component donations were individually analysed by NAT for HIV-1, HBV and HCV. Only discriminatory-positive NAT were classified. The prevalence of discriminatory-positive NAT per 100,000 donations in the donor groups and the odds ratios comparing the remunerated and non-remunerated donations were determined.
resultsSignificant differences were observed for HBV NAT results: 47.42 and 26.29 per 100,000 remunerated first-time and repeat donations, respectively, compared to 10.6 and 3.58 per 100,000 non-remunerated first-time and repeat, seronegative donations, respectively. The differences were also significant for HCV NAT results: 47.42 and 51.99 for remunerated first-time and repeat donations, respectively, compared to 2.12 and 0 per 100,000 non-remunerated first-time and repeat, seronegative donations, respectively. No seronegative, discriminatory-positive NAT HIV case was found. The odds of discriminatory HBV and HCV NAT positive results were statistically significantly higher for both first-time and repeat remunerated donations compared to first-time and repeat non-remunerated donations. DISCUSSION: First-time and repeat remunerated seronegative donations were associated with a statistically significantly higher prevalence and odds for discriminatory-positive HBV and HCV NAT results compared to first-time and repeat non-remunerated donations at the National Blood Centre in Lithuania.
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.