Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41702698›Full record

SynthesisVox sanguinis2026

Serological screening for cytomegalovirus in a leucodepleted blood supply: A systematic review.

Philip J Crispin, Danielle Edwards, Karen Beattie, Kristen Brown, Lisa Clarke, Fiona King, Amanda Ormerod, Bryony Ross

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Vox sanguinis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

8 authors.

Philip J CrispinAustralian and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion Clinical Transfusion Practice Committee, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4124-4971
Danielle EdwardsHunter New England Local Health District, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Karen BeattieAustralian and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion Clinical Transfusion Practice Committee, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kristen BrownAustralian and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion Clinical Transfusion Practice Committee, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lisa ClarkeAustralian and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion Clinical Transfusion Practice Committee, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Fiona KingAustralian and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion Clinical Transfusion Practice Committee, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Amanda OrmerodAustralian and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion Clinical Transfusion Practice Committee, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Bryony RossAustralian and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion Clinical Transfusion Practice Committee, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5219-9176

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesCytomegalovirus (CMV) causes harm in at-risk populations. Selection of seronegative donors has been used to prevent transmission. Leucodepletion reduces the potential for CMV transmission; however, the residual risk is uncertain, leading to variability in practice. This study systematically reviews the risk of CMV transmission in leucodepleted blood products compared to seronegative blood products. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review identified comparative studies of CMV infection rates following transfusion of leucodepleted blood from CMV-negative or unselected donors. Preclinical studies on blood product CMV transmission, reported cases and studies that informed population risk were also reviewed. Meta-analysis was performed on comparative studies.

resultsThere was no difference in the rate of infection following transfusion of leucodepleted cellular products with or without donor CMV seronegativity selection, with a relative risk of 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-3.49). No confirmed cases of CMV transmission were found. Preclinical studies showed a significant reduction in transmissible virus with leucodepletion, although no threshold could be defined. Cell-free CMV is not removed by filtration, and although it may remain a potential source of infection, there was no evidence of transmission through plasma, possibly due to detectable virus not reflecting intact transmissible virus.

conclusionSelecting CMV-seronegative donors did not reduce the risk of transmission when transfusing leucodepleted blood products because of the high efficiency of filters in removing transmissible cellular virus. This finding suggests CMV donor negative selection does not substantially contribute to donor safety.

Indexed as

Blood DonorsCytomegalovirusCytomegalovirus InfectionsLeukocyte Reduction ProceduresHumansSerologic Testscytomegalovirusdonor testingleucodepletiontransfusion‐transmitted infection

Identifiers

PMID41702698
PMCPMC13253062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.