ArticleTransfusion2026
Confidential unit exclusion (cue): Impact on transfusion safety.
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
backgroundConfidential Unit Exclusion (CUE) was introduced when earlier-generation assays had lower sensitivity and longer infectious window periods for transfusion-transmitted infections. Improvements in serological and molecular testing have raised questions about its contemporary utility. This study evaluated the use and predictive performance of CUE at São João Local Health Unit Blood Bank, Porto - Portugal.
methodsA retrospective descriptive study assessed all donations with CUE between January 1, 1999 and August 5, 2025. Donor demographics, CUE outcomes, and laboratory results were retrieved. Confirmed reactive serological and nucleic acid testing (NAT) findings were reviewed. The main analytical focus was on findings suggestive of possible window-period infection after a CUE-excluded donation. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated; associations between CUE status and reactivity were assessed with Fisher's exact test and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsAmong 533,227 donations, 2289 (0.429%) underwent CUE self-exclusion. Twenty-four (1.05%) showed initially reactive markers at the time of the CUE-excluded donation or during follow-up, but none were confirmed as findings suggestive of window-period infections. CUE demonstrated a sensitivity of 0%, specificity of 0.7%, and PPV of 0%. In the 2009-2025 cohort (n = 344,666), no reactive results occurred in the CUE group, whereas 149 (0.043%) occurred in the non-CUE group. No significant association was found between CUE and reactivity (p = 0.388; OR = 2.045; 95% CI 0.286-14.627). DISCUSSION: In this retrospective single-center cohort, CUE showed no measurable diagnostic or predictive value beyond routine screening and identifying possible window-period infections.
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.