Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 643

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Current prevalence and incidence of infectious disease markers and estimated window‐period risk in the American Red Cross blood donor population

Dodd, R.Y., Notari, E.P., Stramer, S.L.·2002·Transfusion

Abstract

BACKGROUND : There has been continuing prog‐ ress in measures to reduce the risk of transfusion‐ transmitted infection, including introduction of serologic tests of increased sensitivity and the recent implementation of investigational NAT in small pools of samples. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS : Data relating to all blood donations to the American Red Cross have been consolidated into a single database. The prevalence of confirmed‐positive test results for HBsAg, HCV, HIV, and HTLV were evaluated for each year for first‐time donors from 1995 through 2001. Incidence rates for these infections were evaluated among repeat donors having at least two donations in a 2‐year period. The frequencies of HIV‐1 RNA‐ and HCV RNA‐positive, seronegative donations were assessed for first‐time and repeat donations. The relationship risk = (window period) × (incidence) was used to assess residual risk among repeat donations and to evaluate the incidence of HCV and HIV infection among first‐time donors. RESULTS : During the study period, prevalence rates for all markers declined significantly over time: in 2001, the rates per 100,000 were 75.6 for HBsAg, 299 for HCV, 9.7 for HIV, and 9.6 for HTLV; the corresponding incidence rates (/100,000 person‐years) were 1.267, 1.889, 1.554, and 0.239, respectively. Estimates of residual risk in donations from repeat donors (after NAT) for HCV and HIV were 1 per 1,935,000 and 1 per 2,135,000, respectively. However, incidence rates for these agents are approximately two times greater among first‐time donors. For both HCV and HIV, NAT yield was concordant with that predicted by current window‐period models. CONCLUSION : These data cover about half of all the whole blood collected in the United States. They suggest increasing improvement in transfusion safety and clearly define the benefit of pooled NAT.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1537-2995.2002.00174.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 643

Metadata

Authors
Dodd, R. Y., Notari, E. P., & Stramer, S. L.
Venue
Transfusion
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-08
Volume
42
Issue
8
Pages
975-979
ISSN
  • 0041-1132 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2995
OpenAlex
W2123654848
Cited by
643
References
0
FWCI
112.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current prevalence and incidence of infectious disease markers and estimated window‐period risk in the American Red Cross blood donor population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1537-2995.2002.00174.x
The paper
Dodd, R. Y., Notari, E. P., & Stramer, S. L. (2002). Current prevalence and incidence of infectious disease markers and estimated window‐period risk in the American Red Cross blood donor population. Transfusion. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.2002.00174.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.