ArticleScientific reports2026
Representativeness of the Danish Blood Donor Study relative to the general population: a cross-sectional assessment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cohorts that are non-representative of their target population pose a critical challenge, limiting generalizability and potentially yielding misleading effect estimates. To this end, we conducted a cross-sectional assessment of the representativeness of the Danish Blood Donor Study (DBDS)—a nationwide cohort of 170,000 individuals recruited during visits to blood donation centers across Denmark—relative to the Danish general population aged 18–74 years. Using national register data, we compared demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related characteristics of DBDS participants to those of non-DBDS individuals as of December 31, 2021. Our findings revealed that DBDS participants were more likely to be well-educated, live with an adult of the opposite sex, and have two children. Although individuals living alone were generally underrepresented, young males (18–24 years) and females (18–44 years) in this group were notably overrepresented. In addition, those with high incomes or with employment in finance or insurance were strongly overrepresented, whereas immigrants and rural residents were underrepresented. Participants were less likely to have any recently recorded diagnoses or redeemed prescriptions across most major disease and treatment categories. In particular, individuals with mental, behavioral, or hematological disorders were markedly underrepresented, whereas females (25–44 years) with diagnoses related to pregnancy, childbirth, or the perinatal period—or with redeemed prescriptions for urogenital or hormonal medications—were overrepresented. This characterization of DBDS participants provides context for interpreting results obtained from the cohort and underscores the need for methodological approaches to improve the generalizability of findings derived from non-representative 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.