ArticleCell and tissue banking2025
Increased serologic reactivity with automated CMIA testing and its implications for deceased donor eligibility determination in the United States.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the United States, the use of Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-licensed, approved, or cleared tests is required for infectious disease screening and determining the eligibility of deceased donors for all Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps). With the discontinuation of two manual enzyme-linked immunoassay (EIA) tests, automated Chemiluminescent Microparticle Immunoassay (CMIA) technology was introduced as the primary alternative. This study compares serologic reactivity rates between manual EIA and automated CMIA methods. Serology testing was performed on blood specimens from deceased tissue and cornea donors using either manual EIA assays or automated CMIA platforms. A retrospective analysis of over 160,000 donors was conducted to evaluate assay-specific reactive rates. Concordance between serology and Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) results was also assessed. Reactive rates for HBsAg, HIV-1/2 antibodies, and HTLV-I/II antibodies increased following the transition to CMIA-based testing compared to manual EIA methods. However, these increases were not associated with a corresponding rise in NAT reactive results, indicating a potential increase in false-positive or non-viremic results. Automated testing offers improved quality control and reduces variability associated with manual techniques. However, the shift to CMIA assays resulted in a higher number of reactive serology results, leading to increased donor ineligibility despite negative NAT results. The data presented here highlights the potential impact on donor deferral rates for tissue and cornea donors due to assay platform changes.
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.