ArticleVox sanguinis2023
Is dual testing for hepatitis C necessary? Modelling the risk of removing hepatitis C antibody testing for Australian blood donations.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesParallel testing of blood donations for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody and HCV RNA by nucleic acid testing (NAT) has been standard practice in Australia since 2000. Meanwhile, NAT technologies have improved, and HCV has become a curable disease. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the risk and clinical consequences of HCV transmission through transfusion. This study aimed to estimate the residual risk (RR) under various testing options to determine the optimal testing strategy. MATERIALS AND
methodsA developed deterministic model calculated the RR of HCV transmission for four testing strategies. A low, mid and high estimate of the RR was calculated for each. The testing strategies modelled were as follows: universal dual testing, targeted dual testing for higher risk groups (first-time donors or transfusible component donations) and universal NAT only.
resultsThe mid estimate of the RR was 1 in 151 million for universal dual testing, 1 in 111 million for targeted dual testing of first-time donors, 1 in 151 million for targeted dual testing for transfusible component donations and 1 in 66 million for universal NAT only. For all testing strategies, all estimates were considerably less than 1 in 1 million.
conclusionAntibody testing in addition to NAT does not materially change the risk profile. Even conservative estimates for the cessation of anti-HCV predict an HCV transmission risk substantially below 1 in 1 million. Therefore, given that it is not contributing to blood safety in Australia but consuming resources, anti-HCV testing can safely be discontinued.
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.