ArticleTransfusion medicine (Oxford, England)2026
Perceptions of donor screening-Do I always need to tell the truth?
Article in Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Donor Health Assessment Questionnaire (DHQ) is fundamental to blood safety. We describe attitudes towards truthfulness among first-time donors who tested positive for transfusion transmissible infections and those who did not. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2005 to 2022 donors positive for infectious markers (cases) and demographically matched controls rated their agreement with statements about truthfulness, privacy and the value of the DHQ.
resultsThere were 798 (32% participation) cases and 3192 (39% participation) controls. Most said they read questions carefully (93% cases, 96% controls, p < 0.01) and answered truthfully (95% cases, 99% controls p < 0.01). Fewer thought the questions make the blood safer (79% cases, 80% controls, p = 0.39) and some agreed it is OK not to answer questions truthfully if you know your blood is safe (21% cases, 16% controls, p < 0.01). Privacy to answer personal questions was generally adequate (88% cases, 91% controls, p < 0.01). Attitudes were similar regardless of paper or electronic DHQ format.
conclusionMost first time donors believe they answer screening questions truthfully, but some question the safety benefit to recipients and judge whether they need to be truthful. This was true for donors with positive infectious markers as well as their matched infection-negative controls.
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.