ArticleCell and tissue banking2026
Predictors of false-positive and invalid results in postmortem blood testing of tissue donors: a case-control study.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postmortem blood screening for infectious diseases is crucial for safe tissue transplantation. However, false-positive and invalid results occur more often than in living donors, potentially leading to unnecessary graft rejection, based on the acceptance criteria of the Dutch Transplant Foundation. This study aimed to identify factors associated with unreliable postmortem test outcomes. A matched case-control study was conducted using data from Dutch tissue donors screened between 2018 and 2023. Cases included 174 donors with false-positive or invalid results, and controls included 460 donors with reliable results. Logistic regression assessed associations between test unreliability and donor factors, including age, body mass index (BMI), sepsis, and malignancy, and procedural factors, including postmortem interval (PMI) and method of blood collection. Prolonged PMI and pathologist-collected samples with delayed processing were significantly associated with unreliable test results. Each additional hour of PMI increased the odds by 10 percent (adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.13, p < 0.001). Blood collection prior autopsy showed over fourfold higher odds of an unreliable result (adjusted OR 4.54, 95% CI: 1.61-13.9, p = 0.005). Donor-related characteristics showed no significant associations. Unreliable postmortem test results are primarily associated with procedural factors. Reducing the PMI and standardizing sampling methods may improve test accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42860456What 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.