ReviewViruses2022
Re-Entry Evaluation of Chinese Blood Donors with Unconfirmed Hepatitis B Screening Results.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Re-entry of donors deferred for false-reactive screening tests in Canada: 10 years post implementation.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Comparison of nucleic acid testing and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in screening Hepatitis-B Virus in blood samples.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Reentry of voluntary blood donors in Chongqing, China (2022-2024): a retrospective single-center analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of NAT+/HBsAg- blood donors: confirmation strategies, serial testing outcomes, and S gene mutations associated with occult HBV infection.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- The "Grey Zone" in Blood Donor Screening: A Retrospective Study and Proposal for Donor Re-Entry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Influence of Occult Hepatitis B Infection on Blood Transfusion Safety and Its Countermeasures.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Establishing a screening strategy for non-discriminatory reactive blood donors by constructing a predictive model of hepatitis B virus infection status from a single blood center in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.