Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32673594›Full record

Observational studyThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2020

Evolving viral and serological stages of Zika virus RNA-positive blood donors and estimation of incidence of infection during the 2016 Puerto Rican Zika epidemic: an observational cohort study.

Phillip C Williamson, Brad J Biggerstaff, Graham Simmons, Mars Stone, Val Winkelman, Gerardo Latoni, Jose Alsina, Sonia Bakkour, Christina Newman, Lisa L Pate and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Phillip C WilliamsonCreative Testing Solutions, Tempe, AZ, USA. Electronic address: pwilliamson@mycts.org.
Brad J BiggerstaffCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Graham SimmonsVitalant Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Mars StoneVitalant Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Val WinkelmanCreative Testing Solutions, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Gerardo LatoniBanco de Sangre Servicios Mutuos, Guaynabo, PR, USA.
Jose AlsinaBanco de Sangre Servicios Mutuos, Guaynabo, PR, USA.
Sonia BakkourVitalant Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Christina NewmanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Lisa L PateRoche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA, USA.
Susan A GalelRoche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA, USA.
Steven KleinmanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Michael P BuschVitalant Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Pacific Research Institute · USMaterials Systems (United States) · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USVitalant · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100001IWHI NIH HHS HHSN268201100001C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPuerto Rico began screening blood donations for Zika virus RNA with nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) on April 3, 2016, because of an emerging Zika virus outbreak. We followed up positive donors to assess the dynamics of viral and serological markers during the early stages of Zika virus infection and update the estimate of infection incidence in the Puerto Rican population during the outbreak.

methodsBlood donations from volunteer donors in Puerto Rico were screened for the presence of Zika virus RNA using the cobas Zika NAAT. Positive donations were further tested to confirm infection, estimate viral load, and identify Zika virus-specific IgM antibodies. Individuals with positive blood donations were invited to attend follow-up visits. Donations with confirmed infection (defined as detection of Zika virus RNA or IgM on additional testing of index or follow-up samples) were assessed for stage of infection according to Zika virus RNA detectability in simulated minipools, viral load, and Zika virus IgM status. A three-step process was used to estimate the mean duration of NAAT reactivity of Zika virus in human plasma from individuals identified pre-seroconversion with at least one follow up visit and to update the 2016 incidence estimate of Zika virus infection.

findingsBetween April 3 and Dec 31, 2016, 53 112 blood donations were screened for Zika virus, of which 351 tested positive, 339 had confirmed infections, and 319 could be staged. Compared with IgM-positive index donations (n=110), IgM-negative index donations (n=209) had higher mean viral loads (1·1 × 10

interpretationCharacterisation of early Zika virus infection has implications for blood safety because infectivity of blood donations and utility of screening methods likely correlate with viral load and serological stage of infection. Our findings also have implications for diagnostic testing, public health surveillance, and epidemiology, and we estimate that around 21% of the Puerto Rican population was infected during the 2016 outbreak.

fundingBiomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Indexed as

EpidemicsAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralBlood DonorsCohort StudiesHumansImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MPuerto RicoRNA, ViralTime FactorsZika VirusZika Virus InfectionAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID32673594
OpenAlexW3042111334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.