ArticlePeerJ2025
Application analysis of two nucleic acid detection systems in blood detection of hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus and human immunodeficiency virus.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- [Screening of Hepatitis C virus in blood donors over 11 years].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy between the Kehua and Roche nucleic acid testing (NAT) systems for detecting hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in blood donation screening. Methods: We analyzed retrospective data from 670,775 transient blood donation samples collected between 2016 and 2024. Key performance indicators (KPIs) included the types of reactive samples, effective split rate, effective reaction rate, single pool invalid number, batch invalid number, and pooling missing samples. Annual trends in cycle threshold (CT) value distributions and overall system performance were also evaluated. Results: Among 419 reactive samples (Kehua: 202; Roche: 217), no significant differences were observed in the effective split rates ( Conclusion: The Kehua and Roche NAT systems demonstrated comparable overall performance in blood screening, with Kehua proving non-inferior to Roche. Kehua's advantages included fewer invalid tests and fewer pooling errors, which could reduce economic and time costs. The Roche system exhibited higher automation, supporting continuous batch processing. The observed CT value-dependent separation efficiency suggests potential for protocol optimization in detecting low viral load samples.
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.