Trial reportTransfusion2017
A randomized trial to evaluate the use of text messaging, letter, and telephone call reminders to improve return of blood donors with reactive serologic tests.
Trial report in Transfusion, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The efficacy of interactive communication interventions for motivating blood donation: A systematic review.Vox sanguinis · 2026Pooled it
- Effective methods for reactivating inactive blood donors: a stratified randomised controlled study.BMC public health · 2020Trial
- Efficiency and safety of varying the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): a randomised trial of 45 000 donors.Lancet (London, England) · 2017Trial
- Blood Center Testing Allows the Detection and Rapid Treatment of Acute and Recent HIV Infection.Viruses · 2022Article
- How to increase first-time donors' returns? The postdonation letter's content can make a difference.Transfusion · 2022Article
- Using text message reminders in health care services: A narrative literature review.Internet interventions · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLow return rates for notification and counseling among donors with reactive serologic screening tests have been reported worldwide. A randomized trial to test the effectiveness of text message, letter, or telephone call reminders to improve return among nonresponding first-time blood donors with reactive serologic tests was conducted. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsDonors with serologically reactive screening test results who had a cell phone and resided in the metropolitan telephone area code of São Paulo in the period from August 2013 through July 2014 were eligible. A consecutive sample of first-time donors with reactive screening tests who had not responded to a standard letter requesting the donor return to the blood center were randomly assigned to receive a text, a new letter, or a telephone call requesting return for notification and counseling. Return rates were measured over the subsequent 30 days.
resultsThe return rate after a phone call reminder was better than that for a text message (39.8% vs. 28.4%; odds ratio [OR], 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-2.64) but not better than that for a letter (39.8% vs. 34.4%; OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.80-1.99). Older age was a predictor of higher rate of return with each year increase in age associated with a 2% increase in the odds of return (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04).
conclusionIn nonresponding serologic reactive donors, telephone call led to a higher return rate than text message. The results of this study suggest that use of text messages, while attractive for its simplicity, will not lead to increased donor notification success after serologically reactive marker results from blood donation in Brazil.
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.