ArticleVox sanguinis2022
Implementation of an Africa-specific donor health questionnaire for human immunodeficiency virus risk screening.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of the most common causes of blood donor deferral in Southern Mozambique.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- The Issue of Screening for Transfusion-Transmitted Infections in Sub-Saharan Africa Presents Several Challenges: A Review.Advances in hematology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWe had previously developed an Africa-specific donor health questionnaire (ASDHQ) based on local risk factors and designed a scoring scheme. This study assessed the performance of a new donor health questionnaire by comparing the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status in accepted versus deferred donors by ASDHQ and comparing the rate of risk deferrals with historical data. MATERIALS AND
methodsData were collected during a cross-sectional study conducted over 15 months at three referral-hospital-based blood services in Cameroon. ASDHQ was administered to blood donors aged 18-65 years in the same screening conditions as the routine questionnaire. The main outcomes of the study were ASDHQ sensitivity and specificity with regard to HIV laboratory testing as well as donor deferral rates for each of the routine screening algorithms and for ASDHQ.
resultsOverall, 71/11,120 (0.6%) were confirmed as HIV positive. The mean ASDHQ score was 95.80 ± 4.4 in HIV-negative donors and 94.80 ± 4.4 in HIV-positive donors (p = 0.05). The optimal cut-off provided by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the best performance of ASDHQ was 95.04. Using this optimal cut-off, the ASDHQ sensitivity and specificity were 57% and 53%, respectively (area under curve = 0.58 [0.51, 0.64], p = 0.028). Using ASDHQ, the HIV prevalence was 0.7% in deferred donors and 0.6% in accepted donors.
conclusionASDHQ might be efficient only in specific conditions that maximize truthful donor responses, requiring each blood service to create an environment of trust and transparency to increase donor compliance and improve the accuracy of the questionnaire.
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.