ReviewTransfusion2026
Assessment of the efficacy of large volume delayed sampling primary culture and pathogen reduction in preventing septic reactions from platelet transfusions.
Review 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany mitigation processes have been introduced to reduce septic transfusion reactions (STRs) caused by the transfusion of bacterially contaminated PLTs.
methodsThe efficacy of primary culture and pathogen reduction is assessed in this review using data from long-term hemovigilance programs in the US, Canada, UK, France, Switzerland, and Australia. These surveillance programs are passive, with under-reporting of cases and differences in diagnostic criteria and reporting requirements between countries and institutions, but changes in rates over time reflect changes in the incidence of reported STRs.
resultsPrior to the introduction of these mitigation methods, reported STR rates ranged from 10 to 100 per million PLT units transfused. Reported STR rates were lowered following the introduction of primary culture using aerobic culture of 8-20 mL samples of PLT pools and apheresis collections around 24 h after collection, ranging from 2 to 24 per million PLT units. Use of large volume, delayed sampling (LVDS) primary culture of 16-20 mL, using both aerobic and anaerobic culture bottles, of pools and apheresis split units performed 36-48 h after collection was associated with a further decrease in reported STR rates, ranging from 0.56 to 4 per million PLT units transfused. Pathogen reduction of apheresis and whole-blood derived PLTs using amotosalen/UVA was associated with a low incidence of reported STR rates, ranging from 0 to 1.1 per million PLT units transfused.
conclusionsReported STR rates using LVDS primary culture were lower than rates using other primary culture methods, with even lower rates using the amotosalen/UVA for pathogen reduction.
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.