ArticlePloS one2022
Reducing the risk of transfusion-transmitted infectious disease markers in blood and blood component donations: Movement from remunerated to voluntary, non-remunerated donations in Lithuania from 2013 to 2020.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of illicit and prescription drug residues in pasteurized donor human milk: a comprehensive analytical approach.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Prevalence of transfusion transmitted infections by mode of donation and remuneration status among blood donors in Georgia, 2018-2023.Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 2025Article
- Prevalence and Residual Risk of HIV in Volunteer Blood Donors of Zhejiang Province, China, from 2018 to 2022.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lithuania has a long history of remunerated donations. The first steps towards voluntary, non-remunerated blood and blood component donations started in 2004. Lithuania achieved 99.98% voluntary non-remunerated donations (VNRDs) in 2020. This study aimed to assess the risk of transfusion-transmitted infectious (TTI) disease markers for remunerated donations in comparison with VNRDs in Lithuania from 2013 to 2020. Data were obtained from the Lithuanian Blood Donor Register. The prevalence was calculated as the rate between the number of confirmed positive results for all TTI disease markers (serological anti-HCV, HBsAg, Ag/anti-HIV 1 and 2, and syphilis, and/or HCV, HBV, and HIV-1 NAT) per 100 donations. The relative risk of infectious disease markers for remunerated donations was then estimated. In total, 796310 donations were made. Altogether, 2743 donations were positive for TTI markers as follows: HCV, 1318; HBV, 768; syphilis, 583; and HIV 1 and 2, 74. The prevalence of confirmed TTI markers were 2.86, 0.97, 0.18, and 0.04 per 100 first-time remunerated donations, first-time VNRDs, repeat remunerated donations, and repeat VNRDs, respectively. Remunerated first-time and repeat donations had a statistically higher prevalence of TTI disease markers than VNRDs. First-time and repeat remunerated donations had statistically significantly higher relative risks of confirmed TTI disease markers than VNRD. In conclusion, the risks of TTI disease markers for remunerated first-time and repeat blood and its component donations are significantly higher than those for VNRDs.
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.