Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36423154›Full record

ReviewViruses2022

Re-Entry Evaluation of Chinese Blood Donors with Unconfirmed Hepatitis B Screening Results.

Xuelian Deng, Liang Zang, Daniel Candotti

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xuelian DengDalian Blood Center, No. 90 Yan'an Road, Zhongshan District, Dalian 116001, China.
Liang ZangDalian Blood Center, No. 90 Yan'an Road, Zhongshan District, Dalian 116001, China.
Daniel CandottiDepartment of Virology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Paris-Est University, Inserm U955-IMRB-Team 18, 94010 Creteil, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7738-5373
Inserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hepatitis B virus (HBV) remains a high priority for Chinese blood banks due to the high prevalence of infection. HBV blood safety has been significantly improved by the implementation of highly sensitive and specific serological and molecular HBV screening assays. The multiplication of viral markers tested and the ever-increasing analytical sensitivity of the tests can make the interpretation of the results difficult. False-positive or indeterminate results may lead to permanent donor deferrals and conflicts between donors and blood banks. To avoid blood shortages, blood services aim to limit unnecessary donor losses by developing procedures for the re-entry of donors temporarily deferred due to an unconfirmed HBV reactivity. The development of such procedures based on donor follow-up and HBV confirmation remains limited. A review of the scarce data available revealed considerable heterogeneity in testing methods and re-entry algorithms, limited validation studies, and a lack of accurate assessment of the residual infectious risk potentially associated with donor re-entry. In conclusion, systematic and widely validated confirmatory testing and prolonged follow-up are essential for safe re-entry of temporary deferred donors. Standardization of HBV testing methods and the establishment of dedicated expert laboratories are needed because of the complexity of HBV infection in blood donors.

Indexed as

Blood DonorsHepatitis BChinaHepatitis B AntibodiesHepatitis B virusHumansHepatitis B Antibodiesblood donorsconfirmatory testingfollow-uphepatitis B virusre-entrytransfusion

Identifiers

PMID36423154
PMCPMC9698129
OpenAlexW4309378638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.