Trial reportTransfusion2020
Recently acquired infection among HIV-seropositive donors in the US from 2010-2018.
Trial report 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing HIV trends among blood donors in five Brazilian blood centers: The impact of individual donor assessment.Transfusion · 2025Article
- HIV Subtypes and Drug-resistance-associated Mutations in US Blood Donors, 2015-2020.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- The impact of non-disclosure of HIV status and antiretroviral therapy on HIV recency testing and incidence algorithms.Vox sanguinis · 2024Article
- Taking a step back from testing: Preanalytical considerations in molecular infectious disease diagnostics.Clinical biochemistry · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMonitoring of transfusion-transmissible infections in the blood supply is essential for blood safety, as the donor population is not static, and changes in policy, donor behavior, or other factors could increase the risk of recipient infection. We assessed patterns of recently acquired HIV infection in US blood donors, including before and after the implementation of the 12-month deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM). STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsA large convenience sample of donations from donors testing HIV-1 nucleic acid testing (NAT) and serology-reactive were further tested with the Sedia HIV-1 Limiting Antigen enzyme immunoassay. Samples were analyzed across available demographic and donation data to provide an assessment of recently acquired HIV infection in US blood donors from 2010 to 2018.
resultsOverall, 317 of 1154 (27.5%; 95% confidence interval, 24.9%-30.1%) donations from HIV NAT and serology-reactive donors had recently acquired HIV infection. There was no evidence of change in the percentages of recent HIV infection by year over the study period, either in all donors or in male donors, including after the MSM policy change. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, donors aged 24 years or younger were over 2.7 times more likely and repeat donors 2.2 times more likely to have recently acquired HIV infection compared to donors aged 55 years or older and first-time donors, respectively.
conclusionPatterns of recently acquired HIV infection varied by demographics but not over time. These findings suggest no impact of the MSM policy change on recently acquired HIV infection in US blood donors.
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.