ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2018
What is the evidence for the change in the blood -donation deferral period for high-risk groups and does it go far enough?
Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2018. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Time-limited deferral scenarios and blood donation intentions among men who have sex with men in China: a nationwide mixed-methods study.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2026Article
- Article
- Ease restrictions on U.S. blood donations.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- The past, the present, and the future: reflecting on -medical history as we welcome new leaders.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In November 2017, the deferral on blood donations from high-risk groups in Great Britain was changed to 3 months from last at-risk sexual contact following recommendations from the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs. This represented a reduction from 12 months for men who have sex with men, and from a lifetime ban for sex workers. This is a step forward for equality and for reducing stigma around these groups. However, one argument for deferral is the prevalence of infections, which may not be identified due to the fallibility of current testing approaches. Clearly it is vital that the welfare of blood transfusion recipients is prioritised and they are not exposed to unacceptable risks. However, with the increasingly sophisticated technology used to screen blood, it can be argued that the evidence shows that the reduction in deferral does not go far enough.
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.