ArticleTransfusion2020
Use of a rapid electronic survey methodology to estimate blood donors' potential exposure to emerging infectious diseases: Application of a statistically representative sampling methodology to assess risk in US blood centers.
Article in Transfusion, 2020. 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.
- Detection of Nucleocapsid Antibodies Associated with Primary SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Unvaccinated and Vaccinated Blood Donors.Emerging infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Challenges for the maintaining the microbiological safety of the UK blood supply.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Review
- Transfusion medicine: Overtime paradigm changes and emerging paradoxes.Transfusion clinique et biologique : journal de la Societe francaise de transfusion sanguine · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Risk assessments of transfusion-transmitted emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are complicated by the fact that blood donors' demographics and behaviors can be different from the general population. Therefore, when assessing potential blood donor exposure to EIDs, the use of general population characteristics, such as U.S. travel statistics, may invoke uncertainties that result in inaccurate estimates of blood donor exposure. This may, in turn, lead to the creation of donor deferral policies that do not match actual risk. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThis article reports on the development of a system to rapidly assess EID risks for a nationally representative portion of the U.S. blood donor population. To assess the effectiveness of this system, a test survey was developed and deployed to a statistically representative sample frame of blood donors from five blood collecting organizations. Donors were directed to an online survey to ascertain their recent travel and potential exposure to Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV).
resultsA total of 7128 responses were received from 54 256 invitations. The age-adjusted estimated total number of blood donors potentially exposed to MERS-CoV was approximately 15 640 blood donors compared to a lower U.S. general population-based estimate of 9610 blood donors.
conclusionThe structured donor demographic sample-based data provided an assessment of blood donors' potential exposure to an emerging pathogen that was 63% larger than the U.S. population-based estimate. This illustrates the need for tailored blood donor-based EID risk assessments that provide more specific demographic risk intelligence and can inform appropriate regulatory decision making.
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.