ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Diagnostic Yield of Rapid Immunoassay-Based Tests and Nucleic Acid Testing for Transfusion-Transmissible Infections in a Tertiary Care Setting.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundTransfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs), particularly human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV), continue to compromise blood safety, especially in high-burden and resource-limited settings. Variability in diagnostic performance across screening modalities contributes to residual risk, particularly during the immunological window period.
objectiveTo comparatively evaluate the diagnostic performance and incremental yield of Rapid tests, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), and nucleic acid testing (NAT) in detecting HIV, HBV, and HCV among blood donors in a tertiary care setting and to identify an optimal screening strategy.
methodsA cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on 2,153 blood donor samples collected over 12 months from September 2024 to September 2025. Eligible donors were aged 18-60 years. Each sample was tested using rapid card tests, ELISA, CLIA, and NAT. Inclusion required sufficient sample volume and complete testing by all four modalities. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, focusing on detection rates and inter-modality discrepancies.
resultsRapid tests showed the lowest detection rates for HIV, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), and HCV at 0.05%, 0.93%, and 0.19%, respectively. ELISA and CLIA demonstrated higher detection rates, with CLIA showing slightly increased detection for HCV. NAT confirmed fewer positive cases for HIV, HBsAg, and HCV at 0.05%, 1.25%, and 0.14%, respectively, suggesting exclusion of likely false-positive serological results. Incremental analysis showed that ELISA and CLIA detected additional reactive donor samples missed by Rapid tests, while NAT refined diagnostic interpretation by confirming active infection.
conclusionSignificant variation exists among diagnostic modalities for TTI screening among blood donors. Rapid tests alone are insufficient for reliable screening. ELISA and CLIA improve serological detection, while NAT provides confirmatory accuracy. A tiered screening approach combining serological methods with NAT may enhance transfusion safety in tertiary care blood bank settings.
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.