Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41011767›Full record

ReviewPathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Pathogen Safety Issues Around the "Blood Scandals" 1995-2024-A Perspective Built on Experience.

Albert Farrugia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. UK Infected Blood Inquiry-An Historical Appraisal.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Albert FarrugiaMedical School, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Perth, WA 6009, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0804-7463

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper addresses issues around the viral safety of plasma derivatives, which have led to a spate of public inquiries over the past thirty years. These inquiries have ensued following the infection of recipients of plasma derivatives and have focused on identifying which, if any, parties were responsible for these events. The most recent of these inquiries-the Infected Blood Inquiry in the United Kingdom-ran between 2018 and 2022, and has reached conclusions regarding the allocation of responsibility, some of which are discussed in this review. The published reports of the inquiries, supplemented by evidence sourced from the peer-reviewed literature, the policies of government agencies, and public reactions to these processes, form the basis of this review. In addition, the perspective of the author, who has a background in plasma fractionation science as well as being a recipient of plasma products during the period covered by these various inquiries, is offered as a way of augmenting the issues covered. The benefits arising from these, occasionally controversial, inquiries are described, including the heightened commitment to blood safety by policymakers, the embedment of precautionism as a safety principle, and the need for transparency and informed consent in patient management.

Indexed as

Blood-Borne PathogensBlood SafetyPlasmaHumansUnited Kingdomblood screeningHCVHIVpathogen safetyviral inactivation

Identifiers

PMID41011767
PMCPMC12473043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.