ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
The utility of grey zone testing in improving blood safety.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. 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.
- The "Grey Zone" in Blood Donor Screening: A Retrospective Study and Proposal for Donor Re-Entry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectTransfusion-transmitted infections threaten blood safety. The management of samples with weak reactivity is confusing. Our study aimed to investigate the utility of grey zone (GZ) testing in the screening of the hepatitis B virus (HBV), the hepatitis C virus (HCV), and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
methodsChemiluminescence assays (CLA) were used for the blood screening. For each infectious marker, two CLA kits were used, but for each sample, only one kit was used for each infectious marker. An S/CO ≥ 8.0 was considered reactive, and an S/CO < 0.8 was considered non-reactive. A 0.8 ≤ S/CO < 1.0 was set as GZ1, a 1.0, ≤ S/CO < 4.0 was set as GZ2, and a 4.0 ≤ S/CO < 8.0 was set as GZ3. The samples located at different GZs were separately verified using nucleic acid testing (NAT).
results22,081 patients requiring blood transfusions were included in this study. The cohort had an average age of 32.6 ± 10.6 years old. HBV test kit B (0.41% reactivity and 0.58% GZ rate) was more sensitive than kit A (0.28% reactivity and 0.43% GZ rate). HCV test kit A (0.29% reactivity and 0.57% GZ rate) was more sensitive than kit B (0.27% reactivity and 0.31% GZ rate). HIV test kit A (0.10% reactivity and 0.20% GZ rate) was more sensitive than kit B (0.08% reactivity and 0.11% GZ rate). All the samples in GZ1 were negative for NAT. HBV test kit A has negativities of 20.00% and 4.35% in GZ2 and GZ3, respectively, while HBV test kit B has negativities of 36.84% and 35.48% in GZ2 and GZ3, respectively. HCV test kit A has negativities of 100.00% and 66.67% in GZ2 and GZ3, respectively, while HCV test kit B has negativities of 72.73% and 27.78% in GZ2 and GZ3, respectively. HIV test kit A has negativities of 100.00% and 88.24% in GZ2 and GZ3, respectively, while HCV test kit B has negativities of 100.00% and 50.00% in GZ2 and GZ3, respectively.
conclusionThe GZ is useful in blood screening for HBV, HCV, and HIV. A test kit with a high sensitivity has a low specificity. Different test kits should be set with different GZs based on their sensitivity and specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34540108PMC8430061What 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.