Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26509824›Full record

ArticleBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2016

Blood donor selection in European Union directives: room for improvement.

Wim De Kort, Wolfgang Mayr, Christof Jungbauer, Tomislav Vuk, Riin Kullaste, Erhard Seifried, Giuliano Grazzini, Jeroen De Wit, Gilles Folléa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The management of a blood donor bitten by a snake.Annals of translational medicine · 2017
    Review
  13. On risk appraisal of behaviour.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2016
    Article
  14. Health data protection and confidentiality in EU BTC legislation: ethical and safety standards.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Wim De KortSanquin Blood Supply, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wolfgang MayrAustrian Red Cross Blood Transfusion Services, Wien, Austria.
Christof JungbauerAustrian Red Cross Blood Transfusion Services, Wien, Austria.
Tomislav VukCroatian Institute of Transfusion Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia.
Riin KullasteNorth Estonia Medical Center - Blood Center, Tallinn, Estonia.
Erhard SeifriedGerman Red Cross Blood Transfusion Services, Frankfurt, Germany.
Giuliano GrazziniItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Jeroen De WitSanquin Blood Supply, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gilles FolléaBlood Consult GF, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransfusion-transmissible infections have made both blood bankers and health authorities overly cautious. The general public expects and hence reinforces this policy. To obtain a high level of blood product safety, blood and plasma donors have to meet increasingly stringent eligibility criteria; however, it is not known whether this policy translates into improved outcomes for patients. There is a risk that the management of donors does not match the ambition of greater safety for patients. European directives related to the collection process and donor selection will probably be reconsidered in the next few years. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe development of European directives on donor selection and their basis in the literature were reviewed with an emphasis on the background and considerations for eligibility criteria to be included in the directives.

resultsThe precautionary principle appears to be the predominant reason behind the set of eligibility criteria. However, the formal eligibility criteria, put into force in 2004, do not balance with the developments of the past decade in laboratory tests and measures that have substantially reduced actual infection risks. In no cases were the effects of eligibility criteria on the donor pool and donor well-being quantified. Regional differences in the epidemiology of transfusion-transmissible infections were not taken into consideration either. DISCUSSION: First, the Authors promote the collection of epidemiological data on the incidence and prevalence of conditions in the general population and in blood and plasma donors which could pose a risk for transfused patients, in order to use these data as a basis for decision-making in donor-selection policies. Second, the Authors suggest including allowance for differential deferral criteria throughout Europe, based on factual risk levels. There should be an accepted balance between donor and patient welfare, and also between risk to transfusion safety and risk of compromising the blood supply.

Indexed as

Blood DonorsDonor SelectionEuropean UnionFemaleHumansInfection ControlInfectionsMale

Identifiers

PMID26509824
PMCPMC4781776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.