Observational studyVox sanguinis2026
Plasma donation rates and infection risk: A multicentre observational study in Denmark.
Observational study in Vox sanguinis, 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe demand for plasma-derived medicinal products underscores the need to assess health effects of plasma donation. This study examines the association between plasma donation rates and infection risk in a country with voluntary, non-remunerated donation. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom 2016 to 2024, 45,615 first-time plasma donors were enrolled in a cohort study with time-varying exposure. Follow-up began 90 days after the first plasma donation, with donation rates recalculated every 90 days. Donation rates were categorized as 0, 1 (reference), 2-3, 4-5 or 6-8 donations. Infection was defined using Danish health registers. Survival models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThe median plasma donation rate was 2 (Q1, 1; Q3, 4). During follow-up, 15,498 donors experienced an infection. A trend of decreasing HRs for infection was observed with higher donation rates compared with a single donation (0 donations: HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86-0.93; 2-3 donations: HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.81-0.89; 4-5 donations: HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.59-0.72; and 6-8 donations: HR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.36-0.62). Findings were consistent across multiple regression models.
conclusionIn this study, higher plasma donation rates were associated with lower infection risk. Importantly, this inverse association is likely due to bias inherent to observational designs, particularly the internal healthy donor effect, which limits interpretation. Thus, no causal relationship between plasma donation rates and infection risk can be inferred. This underscores the challenges of assessing plasma donation safety using non-randomized data.
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.