ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Reentry of voluntary blood donors in Chongqing, China (2022-2024): a retrospective single-center analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents a retrospective analysis of the reentry process for voluntary blood donors in Chongqing, China, from 2022 to 2024, focusing on donor profiles, requalification outcomes, and factors influencing successful return to donation. Donor reentry allows individuals who were temporarily deferred due to reactive screening results for transfusion-transmissible pathogens to requalify as eligible donors, thereby helping to reduce unnecessary donor loss and alleviate donor distress. However, the implementation and effectiveness of such programs vary considerably across regions in China. In this analysis, 808 donors who applied for reentry at the Chongqing Blood Center were included. Reentry testing followed a structured protocol consisting of dual-ELISA serology, individual nucleic acid testing (NAT), and supplementary chemiluminescence assays. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test in SPSS 27.0. The overall reentry success rate was 60.52%, with the highest rate observed among HIV-reactive donors (68.85%) and the lowest among HBV-reactive donors (40.65%). Higher educational attainment was significantly associated with reentry success, while sex, ABO blood type, marital status, and occupation showed no significant correlation. Of the successfully re-entered donors, 49.08% returned to donate at least once, although most donated only once or twice subsequently. Disqualifications occurred in 13.75% of returning donors, primarily due to reactivity for HIV, HBV, or TP. The findings indicate that a well-defined reentry protocol can effectively reintegrate a substantial proportion of single-reagent-reactive donors into the eligible donor pool. Requalification outcomes are influenced by pathogen type and donor education level, underscoring the need for pathogen-specific testing strategies and tailored donor communication. Sustained donor engagement and long-term follow-up are recommended to maintain donation frequency and ensure blood safety.
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.