ArticleBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2022
SARS-CoV-2 and post-donation information: a one-year experience of the French haemovigilance network.
Article in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insights and innovations in Blood Transfusion.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2024Article
- Haemovigilance in India during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of global health · 2023Article
- Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the COVID-19 era.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic and How Blood Operators Can Prepare for the Next Pandemic.Viruses · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing evidence to support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 is probably not transmissible by blood transfusion. In this study, we use the data gathered over one year by the French haemovigilance network on post-donation information related to SARS-CoV-2, and virological investigations on corresponding plasma to explore viral transmission by transfusion. MATERIALS AND
methodsWhenever a donor reported COVID-19 symptoms and/or a positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal (NP) PCR test, information regarding diagnosis and symptoms was collected using a specific questionnaire, and repository plasmas were screened using the SARS-COV-2 R-GENE
resultsWe investigated 1,092 SARS-CoV-2-related post-donation information (PDI) reports. PDI donors were younger than the global donor population and donated more often in the Paris region. Sixty-eight percent reported a positive NP real-time (RT)-PCR or antigenic testing and 22% of these also had symptoms at the time of testing. Thirty-seven (3.4%) donations tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, 11 (30%) were confirmed by another molecular assay, and 7 (19%) by sequencing, confirming low viral level. Most RNAemic blood donors donated in southern regions and in Paris. There was no difference in demographic data or duration parameter between RNAemic and non-RNAemic donors. Duration parameter was determined as the time elapsed between donation and: i) the onset of symptoms; ii) a positive NP RT-PCR; and iii) PDI. Cell culture experiments did not show any infectivity related to RNAemic plasmas. DISCUSSION: SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in a small fraction of blood donors with PDI, reporting very low levels of RNA. The corresponding plasma is probably not infectious. These findings highlight the value of haemovigilance and PDI to guide blood safety strategies.
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.