ArticleVox sanguinis2026
Re-entry of donors deferred for false-reactive screening tests in Canada: 10 years post implementation.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 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.
- Re-entry of donors deferred for false-reactive screening tests in Canada: 10 years post implementation.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCanadian Blood Services implemented a re-entry programme in 2014. Donors deferred because of false-reactive or indeterminate screening tests can provide a specimen for re-entry testing 6 months after their initial test, and resume donating if they test negative for all infectious markers. We evaluated the impact of the programme on donor return and retention, and assessed factors associated with reactive results upon re-entry testing. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing extracted data from our donor database, we followed up donors who tested false-reactive for hepatitis B virus (HBV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), from the implementation of the programme on 3 February 2014 until 30 June 2025 (n = 8094). We characterized the donors reaching each step of the programme by sex, age, donation status and infection marker. We employed logistic regression to identify important predictors of obtaining reactive results upon re-entry testing.
resultsOverall, 17.3% of donors eligible for re-entry testing successfully returned and donated. Re-entry testing participation rates were 35.5%, with repeat and older donors more likely to participate. Among re-entry tested donors, 59.2% tested negative. Most donors continued to donate for multiple years upon re-entry. Upon return, 13.1% tested false reactive on a subsequent donation. False-reactives upon re-entry testing were more likely for first-time donors and less likely when a different assay was employed than for the initially false-reactive.
conclusionThe implementation of a donor re-entry programme has resulted in donor retention and increases in the blood supply. Sending reminder notifications to eligible donors could increase participation.
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.