ArticleTransplantation direct2024
Deceased Organ Donor HTLV Screening Practices Postelimination of Universal Screening in the United States.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: In the United States, universal screening for human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV) in deceased organ donors was discontinued in 2009. Since then, the transplant guideline suggests considering targeted screening. However, the outcomes of this change in HTLV screening have not been evaluated. Methods: Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database between 2010 and 2022, we analyzed the HTLV antibody screening frequency and seroprevalence in potential deceased organ donors and their correlations with HTLV infection risks, including race and high-risk behaviors for blood-borne pathogen infection. Although targeted screening has not been established for HTLV, we hypothesized that screening rates should correlate with the proportions of donors with infection risk if screening is targeted. We also evaluated the organ utilization of HTLV-seropositive donors. Results: Of 130 284 potential organ donors, 22 032 (16.9%) were tested for HTLV antibody. The proportion of donors tested for HTLV varied between Organ Procurement Organizations (median [interquartile range], 3.8% [1.0%-23.2%]; range, 0.2%-99.4%) and was not correlated to HTLV infection risks. There were 48 seropositive donors (0.22%), and at least 1 organ from 42 of these donors (87.5%) was transplanted. The number of organs recovered and transplanted per donor was significantly lower in HTLV-seropositive than in HTLV-negative donors (recovered, 2 [2-3] versus 3 [3-5], Conclusions: HTLV screening practices varied across the United States. Our findings suggest that targeted screening was not performed after the elimination of universal screening.
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.