ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Cost-benefit analysis of serological and nucleic acid testing for hepatitis B virus in blood donors in southern China.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Enhanced detection of HBV and HCV using Cas13a-FLAP and FGoAI platforms.Chemical science · 2026Article
- Low-level hepatitis B surface antigen by ECLIA stratifies early relapse risk in patients with interferon-based HBV functional cure.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Application of serum anti-ENO1 and anti-SSNA1 antibody biomarkers in predicting the prognosis of gastric cancer.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Transfusion-transmitted occult hepatitis B virus infection: current understanding, challenges, and its implication in blood safety.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost Chinese blood centers have implemented mini pool (MP) HBV nucleic acid testing (NAT) together with HBsAg ELISA in routine blood donor screening for HBV infection since 2015, and a few centers upgraded MP to individual donation (ID) NAT screening recently, raising urgent need for cost-benefit analysis of different screening strategies. In an effort to prevent transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) for HBV, cost-benefit analyses of three different screening strategies: HBsAg alone, HBsAg plus MP NAT and HBsAg plus ID NAT were performed in blood donors from southern China where HBV infection was endemic.
methodsMP-6 HBV NAT and ID NAT were adopted in parallel to screen blood donors for further comparative analysis. On the basis of screening data and the documented parameters, the number of window period (WP) infection, HBV acute infection, chronic hepatitis B infection (CHB) and occult hepatitis B infection (OBI) was evaluated, and the potential prevented HBV TTIs and benefits of these three strategies were predicted based on cost-benefit analysis by an estimation model.
resultsOf 132,323 donations, the yield rate for HBsAg-/DNA + screened by ID NAT (0.12%) was significantly higher than that by MP NAT (0.058%, P < 0.05). Furthermore, the predicted transfusion-transmitted HBV cases prevented was 1.25 times more by ID NAT compared to MP-6 NAT. The cost-benefit ratio of the universal HBsAg screening, HBsAg plus ID NAT and HBsAg plus MP NAT were 1:58, 1:27 and 1:22, respectively.
conclusionsUniversal HBsAg ELISA screening in combination with HBV ID NAT or MP-6 NAT strategies was highly cost effective in China. To further improve blood safety, HBsAg plus HBV DNA ID NAT screening should be considered in HBV endemic regions/countries.
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.