Trial reportTransfusion2015
Does offering human immunodeficiency virus testing at the time of blood donation reduce transfusion transmission risk and increase disclosure counseling? Results of a randomized controlled trial, São Paulo, Brazil.
Trial report in Transfusion, 2015. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of the first year of COVID-19 pandemic on the collection and use of blood components in Colombia monitored through the national haemovigilance system.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- High prevalence of blood donor test-seeking behavior among health sciences undergraduate students.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2020Article
- Self-reported historic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in a Brazilian blood donor HIV case-control study.Transfusion · 2016Article
- Blood donation deferral policies among men who have sex with men in Brazil.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a blood bank in São Paulo, we tested the hypotheses that offering client-centered human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) counseling and testing to blood donors would: 1) reduce the risk of HIV contamination in the blood supply by diverting higher-risk, test-seeking donors away from donation and 2) increase return for results and referrals to care. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe randomly selected weeks between August 2012 and May 2013 when donors were offered HIV counseling and testing (n = 6298), leaving usual procedure weeks as control (n = 5569).
resultsFew candidate donors chose HIV testing (n = 81, 1.3%). There was no significant difference in herpes simplex virus Type 2 (HSV-2) prevalence (a marker of sexual risk) among donors during intervention weeks compared to control (10.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.245). No donor choosing testing was HIV infected, and there was no difference in HSV-2 prevalence between testers and donors (9.9% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.887). Returning for positive results did not differ between testers and donors (three of three vs. 58 of 80, p = 0.386). A higher proportion of donors acknowledged that HIV testing was a strong motivation to donate during intervention weeks compared to control (2.6% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.032).
conclusionThe evidence of our RCT is that offering HIV counseling and testing at the time of donation would not change the risk of contamination in the blood supply, nor improve results disclosure and referral to care.
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.