MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937239800 · doi:10.1111/vox.12780

Is there a risk of transfusion‐transmissible infections after percutaneous needle treatments in blood donors? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2019· review· en· W2937239800 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hans Van Remoortel, Dorien Moorkens, Bert Avau, Veerle Compernolle, Philippe Vandekerckhove, Emmy De Buck

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousMeta-analysisBlood transfusionObservational studyOdds ratioSurgeryInternal medicineRelative riskConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The donor medical questionnaire identifies a blood donor's history of known blood safety risks. Current Australian, Canadian, European and USA legislation temporarily defers blood donors who received different percutaneous needle treatments (i.e. tattooing, acupuncture and piercing) from blood donation. This systematic review aimed to scientifically underpin these deferrals by identifying the best available evidence on the association between percutaneous needle treatments and the risk of transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies from three databases investigating the link between percutaneous needle treatments and TTIs (HBV, HCV and HIV infection) in blood donors were retained and assessed on eligibility by two reviewers independently. The association between percutaneous needle treatments and TTIs was expressed by conducting meta-analyses and calculating pooled effect measures (odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs). The GRADE methodology (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 1242 references and finally included 21 observational studies. Twenty studies assessed the link between percutaneous needle treatments and HCV infection and found that blood donors receiving these treatments had an increased risk of HCV infection (tattooing: pooled OR 5·28, 95% CI [4·33, 6·44], P < 0·00001 (low-quality evidence); acupuncture: pooled OR 1·56, 95% CI [1·17, 2·08], P = 0·03 (very low-quality evidence); and piercing: pooled OR 3·25, 95% CI [1·68, 6·30], P = 0·0005 (low-quality evidence)). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous needle treatments may be associated with an increased HCV infection risk. Further high-quality studies are required to formulate stronger evidence-based recommendations on percutaneous needle treatments as a blood donor deferral criterion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.037
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207