ArticleTransfusion2023
Donor and non-donor perspectives on receiving information from routine genomic testing of donor blood.
Article in Transfusion, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision transfusion medicine in the omics era.Blood · 2026Review
- Article
- Health promotion for blood donors: A scoping review.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
- Equity in blood transfusion precision services.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Long-Read Sequencing in Blood Group Genetics.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2023Review
- Donor and non-donor perspectives on receiving information from routine genomic testing of donor blood.Transfusion · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenomic testing is already used by blood collection agencies (BCAs) to identify rare blood types and ensure the best possible matching of blood. With ongoing technological developments, broader applications, such as the identification of genetic markers relevant to blood donor health, will become feasible. However, the perspectives of blood donors (and potential blood donors) on routine genomic testing of donor blood are under-researched. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsEight online Focus Groups were conducted: four with donors and four with non-donors. Participants were presented with three hypothetical scenarios about the current and possible future applications of genomic testing: Performing rare blood type testing; identifying donors with genetic markers associated with iron metabolism; and identifying donors with genetic markers associated with bowel cancer.
resultsTesting to identify rare blood types was perceived to be an appropriate application for the BCA to undertake, while identifying markers associated with iron metabolism and cancer genetic markers were only partially supported. Participants raised concerns about the boundaries of acceptable testing and the implications of testing for privacy, data security, and health insurance. Perspectives of donors and non-donors on all scenarios were similar. DISCUSSION: The principles of who benefits from genomic testing and the perceived role of BCAs were key in shaping participants' perspectives. Participants generally agreed that testing should be directly related to blood donation or be of benefit to the recipient or donor. Findings indicate that consent and communication are key to the acceptability of current and expanded genomic testing.
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.