Trial reportTransfusion2019
Social and behavioral characteristics of male blood donors and their sexual partners: an analysis to define risk subsets.
Trial report in Transfusion, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Characterization of HIV risks in a Brazilian sickle cell disease population.BMC public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMen who have sex with men in Brazil are deferred from donation for 1 year since their last sexual contact. Legal proceedings in front of the Brazilian Supreme Court could compel blood collection agencies to discontinue use of sexual orientation questions.
methodsData from male participants in a completed HIV risk factor case-control study were used to evaluate whether it is possible to differentiate donors at lower and higher risk for HIV using two analytical approaches: latent class and random forest analyses.
resultsMale blood donors were divided into three distinct risk profile classes. Class 1 includes donors who are heterosexual (96.4%), are HIV negative (88.7%), have a main partner (99.4%), and practice unprotected sex (77.8%). Class 2 includes donors who are men who have sex with men /bisexuals' (100.0%), are HIV positive (97.4%), and were not aware of their sexual partners' HIV status (80.3%). Class 3 includes donors who are heterosexual (84.1%), practice unprotected vaginal/anal heterosexual sex (66.8% vs. 40.9%), and were both HIV positive and HIV negative (49.5% vs. 50.5%). We also found that asking donors about their partner(s)' HIV serostatus could replace asking about donors' sexual orientation and types of partners with relatively minor shifts in sensitivity (0.76 vs. 0.58), specificity (0.89 vs. 0.94), and positive predictive value (0.85 vs. 0.88).
conclusionSexual orientation questions on the donor questionnaire could be replaced without great loss in the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Social and sexual behaviors of donors and their partners are proxies for HIV risk and can help to develop modified questions that will need controlled trials to be validated.
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.