2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2010.09.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can the nucleic acid amplification test (NAT) be an alternative to the serologic tests? A prospective study, the results of 18,200 blood donors from the Turkish Red Crescent

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…32 serological reference test as a confirmatory test 18,20 when screening the general population for HCV infection. Our assessment of the body of evidence using GRADE methodology led us to focus on a single "least-biased" study, 26 in which the sensitivity of the ELISA version 3.0 compared with nucleic acid amplification testing was 81.8% (95% CI 59.0%-100%) and the specificity 99.7% (95% CI 99.6%-99.8%). Assuming an HCV seroprevalence rate of 0.96%, as in the general Canadian population, 2 the positive predictive value would be 72.7% (95% CI 66.2%-78.8%); in other words, 1 of every 4 positive ELISA version 3.0 test results would be a false-positive result.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…32 serological reference test as a confirmatory test 18,20 when screening the general population for HCV infection. Our assessment of the body of evidence using GRADE methodology led us to focus on a single "least-biased" study, 26 in which the sensitivity of the ELISA version 3.0 compared with nucleic acid amplification testing was 81.8% (95% CI 59.0%-100%) and the specificity 99.7% (95% CI 99.6%-99.8%). Assuming an HCV seroprevalence rate of 0.96%, as in the general Canadian population, 2 the positive predictive value would be 72.7% (95% CI 66.2%-78.8%); in other words, 1 of every 4 positive ELISA version 3.0 test results would be a false-positive result.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…22,23,26 One of the 3 studies 23 was excluded because, as a result of there being no false-negative results, the correction of the sensitivity estimate for verification bias was overly conservative 40 and the uncorrected sensitivity was too biased to be meaningful. Another study 22 was excluded because, based on its results, the study prevalence of HCV was very high, at 23.6%; this suggested that either the study population was not reflective of the general population or a case-control design was used (in either case, it did not meet our inclusion criteria).…”
Section: Assessment Of Quality Of Body Of Evidence With Grade Methodomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The safety of blood transfusion may be compromised as a result of donors that are infected with HBsAg mutants, as well as those with circulating undetectable levels of viral protein, which can escape detection by common screening tests as a result of alterations in the "a" determinant region of the S gene (Qiu et al, 2008). However, more accurate and cost-effective tests are increasingly required to prevent the risk of contracting an infection by receiving a contaminated blood unit (Kosan et al, 2010).…”
Section: Hbsag Mutation and Blood Donationmentioning
confidence: 99%