ArticleBioinformation2025
Comparative analysis of NAT reactivity and CLIA in detecting transfusion transmitted Infection among blood donors.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effect of Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) and Chemiluminescent Immunoassay (CLIA) in detecting TTIs (HIV, HBV, HCV, Syphilis and Malaria by rapid card) among 30,335 blood donations, with a focus on 1,843 reactive units is of interest. NAT showed superior sensitivity (98.50% for HBV, 98% for HIV and 97.50% for HCV) compared to CLIA (94.44.0% for HIV, 79.09% for HBV, 64.20% for HCV), but both methods exhibited high false-positive rates (37.7% for NAT, up to 70.6% for CLIA-HCV). NAT had specificity for HIV (98.5%), HBV (98%) and HCV (98%). CLIA exhibited high false positives (HBV: 27.1%, HCV: 16.5%, HIV: 5.7%), while NAT yield identified 106 HBV (0.35%) and 63 HCV (0.2%) additional cases. NAT was cost-effective for HBV and HCV but less so for HIV. Thus, NAT's role as a highly sensitive screening tool and with CLIA requiring confirmatory testing to optimize blood supply efficiency is shown.
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.