Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42313459›Full record

ReviewTransfusion2026

Assessment of the efficacy of large volume delayed sampling primary culture and pathogen reduction in preventing septic reactions from platelet transfusions.

Michael R Jacobs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Michael R JacobsDepartment of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4235-7855

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Blood SafetyPlatelet TransfusionSepsisTransfusion ReactionHumansapheresisbacterial contaminationculturepathogen reductionPLT safetyrisk control strategiesseptic transfusion reaction

Identifiers

PMID42313459
PMCPMC13569094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.