ArticleBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2014
Bacterial screening of platelet concentrates on day 2 and 3 with flow cytometry: the optimal sampling time point?
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigation of co-existing bacteria in platelets by employing long-term culturomics and metagenomics.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Bench Test for the Detection of Bacterial Contamination in Platelet Concentrates Using Rapid and Cultural Detection Methods with a Standardized Proficiency Panel.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2015Article
- Evaluation of Risk Minimisation Measures for Blood Components - Based on Reporting Rates of Transfusion-Transmitted Reactions (1997-2013).Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing concern on the residual risk of bacterial contamination of platelet concentrates in Germany, despite the reduction of the shelf-life of these concentrates and the introduction of bacterial screening. In this study, the applicability of the BactiFlow flow cytometric assay for bacterial screening of platelet concentrates on day 2 or 3 of their shelf-life was assessed in two German blood services. The results were used to evaluate currently implemented or newly discussed screening strategies. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo thousand and ten apheresis platelet concentrates were tested on day 2 or day 3 after donation using BactiFlow flow cytometry. Reactive samples were confirmed by the BacT/Alert culture system.
resultsTwenty-four of the 2,100 platelet concentrates tested were reactive in the first test by BactiFlow. Of these 24 platelet concentrates, 12 were false-positive and the other 12 were initially reactive. None of the microbiological cultures of the initially reactive samples was positive. Parallel examination of 1,026 platelet concentrates by culture revealed three positive platelet concentrates with bacteria detected only in the anaerobic culture bottle and identified as Staphylococcus species. Two platelet concentrates were confirmed positive for Staphylcoccus epidermidis by culture. Retrospective analysis of the growth kinetics of the bacteria indicated that the bacterial titres were most likely below the diagnostic sensitivity of the BactiFlow assay (<300 CFU/mL) and probably had no transfusion relevance.
conclusionsThe BactiFlow assay is very convenient for bacterial screening of platelet concentrates independently of the testing day and the screening strategy. Although the optimal screening strategy could not be defined, this study provides further data to help achieve this goal.
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.