ArticleTransfusion2019
Deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment.
Article in Transfusion, 2019. 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.
- Understanding donor behaviour following a deferral for low haemoglobin: A cross-sectional survey study.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Efforts to link HIV-positive and high-risk blood donors to HIV testing, and treatment services, Mozambique, 2019-2020.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Demographics and serological profile of blood donors who opt for the confidential unit exclusion in a blood bank in Sao Paulo, Brazil.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth donors and the blood bank rely on the result of the donor health interview. However, survey data suggest that substantial variability in deferral rates among interviewers exist. We studied whether variability remained after adjusting for conditional factors. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThe data set included Dutch interview data on whole blood donor visits in 2015, where one of their visits was selected randomly. We applied logistic regression and multilevel regression analyses with the donor visit, with the interviewer representing the levels. We set up four models: 1) all reasons deferral, 2) low-hemoglobin-level deferral, 3) infectious disease risk deferral and 4) other medical reasons deferral.
resultsIn total, 138,398 visits were included in the study, of which 60,534 (43.7%) related to male donors. The overall deferral rate for men was 7.91% and for women 12.25%. Deferral rates among interviewers ranged from as low as 1.19% up to 28.8%. Models 2 (low hemoglobin level) and particularly 4 (other medical reasons), for both men and women, showed significant intraclass correlation coefficients, implying considerable deferral rate variability among interviewers. Donor age, the number of previous visits, and the season had relatively large effects. However, explained variances of the logistic regression models were relatively low, ranging from 2.53% to 7.35%.
conclusionDeferral appears to be a random process, while substantial variability was found among interviewer deferral rates, suggesting that some interviewers are more cautious than others. Our results suggest heuristic and subjective diagnosing to be prevalent. Steps should be taken to improve interview result validity.
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.