ArticleTransfusion2022
Human T-lymphotropic virus in Irish blood donors: Impact on future testing strategy.
Article in Transfusion, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human T-lymphotropic virus in Irish blood donors: Impact on future testing strategy.Transfusion · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimA risk-based approach to the testing of blood donations for Human T-Lymphotropic Virus (HTLV) should include an assessment of blood donation seroepidemiology. The objectives of the present study were to determine the proportion of HTLV positive units in Irish blood donations, and subsequently, to estimate the current risk of transfusion transmitted HTLV (TT-HTLV).
methodsOver 3 million donations screened between 1996 and 2020, were included in the study (n = 3,666,253). Factors considered in the assessment of TT-HTLV risk included: (I) HTLV seropositivity, (ii) probability of a leucodepletion failure, and (iii) the HTLV testing strategy.
resultsSix HTLV positive donations were detected throughout the study period, all of them in previously unscreened blood donors (0.000164%; n = 6/3,666,253), 3 of whom had donated prior to the introduction of HLTV antibody testing. On average 0.11% of manufactured blood components assessed, failed to satisfy the leucodepletion quality assurance criteria of less than 1 × 10
conclusionsThis is the first report on the proportion of HTLV positive in Irish blood donations (1996-2020) and will be used to inform blood donation screening policy in Ireland. Evidence is provided for recommending a selective HTLV donor screening algorithm in Ireland that is accompanied by a robust framework for continued surveillance of leucodepletion failure rate.
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.