ArticleTransfusion2026
The risk of transfusion transmissible infection in a civilian walking blood bank using rapid diagnostic tests: A modeling study.
Article in Transfusion, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCivilian walking blood banks (WBBs) can transfuse fresh whole blood from mobilized donors who are screened using rapid diagnostic testing (RDT) for transfusion transmissible infections (TTIs) to preserve life when banked blood is unavailable. However, concerns regarding TTI risk using an RDT process instead of laboratory-based testing methods persist. We aimed to understand the additional risk of TTI using an RDT-based strategy compared to a laboratory-based strategy with a simulation model and accompanying online tool. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe modeled expected TTIs per 100,000 donations from initial collection to transfusion and infection. Parameters included TTI prevalence, donor risk stratification, efficacy of stratification tools, TTI testing rates, platform test performance, and probability of infection.
resultsA baseline TTI prevalence of 1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25%, 1.75%) resulted in 56 TTIs (95% CI: 23, 91) when the RDT sensitivity was 90% (95% CI: 88%, 92%), 30 TTIs (95% CI: 12, 52) when the RDT sensitivity was 95% (95% CI: 93%, 97%), and 12 TTIs (95% CI: 4, 23) when the RDT sensitivity was 99% (95% CI: 97, 100%) per 100,000 donations. Compared to lab-based testing, 15,351 donations would need to be made under a high-sensitivity RDT testing strategy in order to incur one additional TTI. DISCUSSION: In a simulated WBB model, modern RDT platforms demonstrated favorable test characteristics, with low absolute rates of TTI, particularly when low-risk donors are selected. These findings support WBB implementation as an emergency transfusion strategy in settings lacking banked blood.
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.