↓ Skip to main content

Hepatitis B Virus Blood Screening: Need for Reappraisal of Blood Safety Measures?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hepatitis B Virus Blood Screening: Need for Reappraisal of Blood Safety Measures?
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Candotti, Syria Laperche

Abstract

Over the past decades, the risk of HBV transfusion-transmission has been steadily reduced through the recruitment of volunteer donors, the selection of donors based on risk-behavior evaluation, the development of increasingly more sensitive hepatitis B antigen (HBsAg) assays, the use of hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) screening in some low-endemic countries, and the recent implementation of HBV nucleic acid testing (NAT). Despite this accumulation of blood safety measures, the desirable zero risk goal has yet to be achieved. The residual risk of HBV transfusion-transmission appears associated with the preseroconversion window period and occult HBV infection characterized by the absence of detectable HBsAg and extremely low levels of HBV DNA. Infected donations tested false-negative with serology and/or NAT still persist and derived blood components were shown to transmit the virus, although rarely. Questions regarding the apparent redundancy of some safety measures prompted debates on how to reduce the cost of HBV blood screening. In particular, accumulating data strongly suggests that HBsAg testing may add little, if any HBV risk reduction value when HBV NAT and anti-HBc screening also apply. Absence or minimal acceptable infectious risk needs to be assessed before considering discontinuing HBsAg. Nevertheless, HBsAg remains essential in high-endemic settings where anti-HBc testing cannot be implemented without compromising blood availability. HBV screening strategy should be decided according to local epidemiology, estimate of the infectious risk, and resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Other 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 43 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 44 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,587,406
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#4,010
of 5,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,279
of 331,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#83
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.