Impact of HCV 3.0 EIA relative to HCV 2.0 EIA on blood-donor screening
BACKGROUND: In 1996, the Ortho HCV Version 3.0 ELISA Test System (HCV 3.0 EIA) was licensed in the United States for donor screening but was neither mandated nor universally implemented. Data from two studies comparing the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA and HCV 2.0 EIA are presented. The f...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Transfusion (Philadelphia, Pa.) Pa.), 2003-10, Vol.43 (10), p.1452-1459 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1459 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 1452 |
| container_title | Transfusion (Philadelphia, Pa.) |
| container_volume | 43 |
| creator | Tobler, Leslie H. Stramer, Susan L. Lee, Stephen R. Masecar, Barbara L. Peterson, Jon E. Davis, E. Anne Andrews, William E. Brodsky, Jaye P. Kleinman, Steven H. Phelps, Bruce H. Busch, Michael P. |
| description | BACKGROUND: In 1996, the Ortho HCV Version 3.0 ELISA Test System (HCV 3.0 EIA) was licensed in the United States for donor screening but was neither mandated nor universally implemented. Data from two studies comparing the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA and HCV 2.0 EIA are presented. The first study evaluated the differential performance in a cross‐section of screened whole‐blood donors after implementation of HCV 3.0 EIA; the second study evaluated the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA in plasma donors acutely infected with HCV, identified during routine Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA and HCV NAT (using Roche Ampliscreen plate assay) donor screening.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The first study evaluated HCV 3.0 EIA repeat‐reactive donations from four US blood centers, identified during the first 5 months of HCV 3.0 EIA implementation. HCV EIA repeat‐reactive donations confirmed by RIBA HCV 3.0 SIA were retested using both Ortho HCV Version 2.0 ELISA Test System and Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA. All EIA‐discordant donations were tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In the second study, Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA‐nonreactive, HCV PCR‐positive donors were enrolled in a follow‐up study in which the index and follow‐up samples were re‐evaluated by HCV 3.0 EIA.
RESULTS: In the first study, of 292,459 donations, 501 (0.17%) confirmed HCV 3.0 EIA‐reactive donations were identified; 15 (0.005%) were nonreactive by Ortho HCV 2.0 EIA and were all HCV RNA negative. In the second study, Ortho HCV 3.0 EIA retesting of Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA‐nonreactive, RNA‐positive index donations identified 16 (23%) as 3.0 EIA reactive. In 42 panels with a discordant time of seroconversion, HCV 3.0 EIA sero‐conversion preceded HCV 2.0 EIA in all cases (p < 0.001). Two donors with HCV 3.0 EIA‐reactive index donations never seroconverted by HCV 2.0 EIA during 160 to 180 days of follow‐up.
CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate that HCV 3.0 EIA compared to HCV 2.0 EIA can better detect 1) remote nonviremic HCV infections, 2) acute infection, and 3) HCV antibodies in cases of atypical seroconversion. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1046/j.1537-2995.2003.00521.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75716063</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>75716063</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4321-7a33389bed41cb1f260c6266d99c6b7ade2e4029ae9e6a093f5238368dbc133c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkFFv0zAQxy0EYmXwFZBf4C2Z7YvtWOJlqtatYgJpKt2j5TgXlJLGxU5H9-1J12h73dOdzr__-fQjhHKWc1aoi03OJehMGCNzwRjkjEnB88MbMnt-eEtmjBU84xzEGfmQ0oYxJgzj78kZLyTTQpsZWSy3O-cHGhp6M1_TcRO9Wl7SiJ0b2gekQ3iai2keelp1IdRZHfoQafIRsW_73x_Ju8Z1CT9N9Zz8Wlyt5jfZ7c_r5fzyNvMFCJ5pBwClqbAuuK94IxTzSihVG-NVpV2NAovxSIcGlWMGGimgBFXWlecAHs7J19PeXQx_95gGu22Tx65zPYZ9slpqrpiCESxPoI8hpYiN3cV26-Kj5cweHdqNPaqyR1X26NA-ObSHMfp5-mNfbbF-CU7SRuDLBLjkXddE1_s2vXCSm1IaPnLfTty_tsPHVx9gV3eLsRnj2SnepgEPz3EX_1ilQUt7_-PawvfV3Vrer-0C_gMrCZdx</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>75716063</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of HCV 3.0 EIA relative to HCV 2.0 EIA on blood-donor screening</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Tobler, Leslie H. ; Stramer, Susan L. ; Lee, Stephen R. ; Masecar, Barbara L. ; Peterson, Jon E. ; Davis, E. Anne ; Andrews, William E. ; Brodsky, Jaye P. ; Kleinman, Steven H. ; Phelps, Bruce H. ; Busch, Michael P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tobler, Leslie H. ; Stramer, Susan L. ; Lee, Stephen R. ; Masecar, Barbara L. ; Peterson, Jon E. ; Davis, E. Anne ; Andrews, William E. ; Brodsky, Jaye P. ; Kleinman, Steven H. ; Phelps, Bruce H. ; Busch, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND: In 1996, the Ortho HCV Version 3.0 ELISA Test System (HCV 3.0 EIA) was licensed in the United States for donor screening but was neither mandated nor universally implemented. Data from two studies comparing the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA and HCV 2.0 EIA are presented. The first study evaluated the differential performance in a cross‐section of screened whole‐blood donors after implementation of HCV 3.0 EIA; the second study evaluated the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA in plasma donors acutely infected with HCV, identified during routine Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA and HCV NAT (using Roche Ampliscreen plate assay) donor screening.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The first study evaluated HCV 3.0 EIA repeat‐reactive donations from four US blood centers, identified during the first 5 months of HCV 3.0 EIA implementation. HCV EIA repeat‐reactive donations confirmed by RIBA HCV 3.0 SIA were retested using both Ortho HCV Version 2.0 ELISA Test System and Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA. All EIA‐discordant donations were tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In the second study, Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA‐nonreactive, HCV PCR‐positive donors were enrolled in a follow‐up study in which the index and follow‐up samples were re‐evaluated by HCV 3.0 EIA.
RESULTS: In the first study, of 292,459 donations, 501 (0.17%) confirmed HCV 3.0 EIA‐reactive donations were identified; 15 (0.005%) were nonreactive by Ortho HCV 2.0 EIA and were all HCV RNA negative. In the second study, Ortho HCV 3.0 EIA retesting of Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA‐nonreactive, RNA‐positive index donations identified 16 (23%) as 3.0 EIA reactive. In 42 panels with a discordant time of seroconversion, HCV 3.0 EIA sero‐conversion preceded HCV 2.0 EIA in all cases (p < 0.001). Two donors with HCV 3.0 EIA‐reactive index donations never seroconverted by HCV 2.0 EIA during 160 to 180 days of follow‐up.
CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate that HCV 3.0 EIA compared to HCV 2.0 EIA can better detect 1) remote nonviremic HCV infections, 2) acute infection, and 3) HCV antibodies in cases of atypical seroconversion.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0041-1132</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-2995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.2003.00521.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14507279</identifier><identifier>CODEN: TRANAT</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK and Malden, USA: Blackwell Science Inc</publisher><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Biological and medical sciences ; Blood Donors ; Blood. Blood and plasma substitutes. Blood products. Blood cells. Blood typing. Plasmapheresis. Apheresis ; Hepatitis C - diagnosis ; Hepatitis C Antibodies - blood ; Human viral diseases ; Humans ; Immunoenzyme Techniques ; Infectious diseases ; Medical sciences ; RNA, Viral - blood ; Transfusions. Complications. Transfusion reactions. Cell and gene therapy ; Viral diseases ; Viral hepatitis</subject><ispartof>Transfusion (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2003-10, Vol.43 (10), p.1452-1459</ispartof><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4321-7a33389bed41cb1f260c6266d99c6b7ade2e4029ae9e6a093f5238368dbc133c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4321-7a33389bed41cb1f260c6266d99c6b7ade2e4029ae9e6a093f5238368dbc133c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046%2Fj.1537-2995.2003.00521.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046%2Fj.1537-2995.2003.00521.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15198591$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14507279$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tobler, Leslie H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stramer, Susan L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Stephen R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masecar, Barbara L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peterson, Jon E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, E. Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrews, William E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodsky, Jaye P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kleinman, Steven H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phelps, Bruce H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Busch, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of HCV 3.0 EIA relative to HCV 2.0 EIA on blood-donor screening</title><title>Transfusion (Philadelphia, Pa.)</title><addtitle>Transfusion</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND: In 1996, the Ortho HCV Version 3.0 ELISA Test System (HCV 3.0 EIA) was licensed in the United States for donor screening but was neither mandated nor universally implemented. Data from two studies comparing the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA and HCV 2.0 EIA are presented. The first study evaluated the differential performance in a cross‐section of screened whole‐blood donors after implementation of HCV 3.0 EIA; the second study evaluated the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA in plasma donors acutely infected with HCV, identified during routine Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA and HCV NAT (using Roche Ampliscreen plate assay) donor screening.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The first study evaluated HCV 3.0 EIA repeat‐reactive donations from four US blood centers, identified during the first 5 months of HCV 3.0 EIA implementation. HCV EIA repeat‐reactive donations confirmed by RIBA HCV 3.0 SIA were retested using both Ortho HCV Version 2.0 ELISA Test System and Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA. All EIA‐discordant donations were tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In the second study, Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA‐nonreactive, HCV PCR‐positive donors were enrolled in a follow‐up study in which the index and follow‐up samples were re‐evaluated by HCV 3.0 EIA.
RESULTS: In the first study, of 292,459 donations, 501 (0.17%) confirmed HCV 3.0 EIA‐reactive donations were identified; 15 (0.005%) were nonreactive by Ortho HCV 2.0 EIA and were all HCV RNA negative. In the second study, Ortho HCV 3.0 EIA retesting of Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA‐nonreactive, RNA‐positive index donations identified 16 (23%) as 3.0 EIA reactive. In 42 panels with a discordant time of seroconversion, HCV 3.0 EIA sero‐conversion preceded HCV 2.0 EIA in all cases (p < 0.001). Two donors with HCV 3.0 EIA‐reactive index donations never seroconverted by HCV 2.0 EIA during 160 to 180 days of follow‐up.
CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate that HCV 3.0 EIA compared to HCV 2.0 EIA can better detect 1) remote nonviremic HCV infections, 2) acute infection, and 3) HCV antibodies in cases of atypical seroconversion.</description><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Blood Donors</subject><subject>Blood. Blood and plasma substitutes. Blood products. Blood cells. Blood typing. Plasmapheresis. Apheresis</subject><subject>Hepatitis C - diagnosis</subject><subject>Hepatitis C Antibodies - blood</subject><subject>Human viral diseases</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunoenzyme Techniques</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>RNA, Viral - blood</subject><subject>Transfusions. Complications. Transfusion reactions. Cell and gene therapy</subject><subject>Viral diseases</subject><subject>Viral hepatitis</subject><issn>0041-1132</issn><issn>1537-2995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkFFv0zAQxy0EYmXwFZBf4C2Z7YvtWOJlqtatYgJpKt2j5TgXlJLGxU5H9-1J12h73dOdzr__-fQjhHKWc1aoi03OJehMGCNzwRjkjEnB88MbMnt-eEtmjBU84xzEGfmQ0oYxJgzj78kZLyTTQpsZWSy3O-cHGhp6M1_TcRO9Wl7SiJ0b2gekQ3iai2keelp1IdRZHfoQafIRsW_73x_Ju8Z1CT9N9Zz8Wlyt5jfZ7c_r5fzyNvMFCJ5pBwClqbAuuK94IxTzSihVG-NVpV2NAovxSIcGlWMGGimgBFXWlecAHs7J19PeXQx_95gGu22Tx65zPYZ9slpqrpiCESxPoI8hpYiN3cV26-Kj5cweHdqNPaqyR1X26NA-ObSHMfp5-mNfbbF-CU7SRuDLBLjkXddE1_s2vXCSm1IaPnLfTty_tsPHVx9gV3eLsRnj2SnepgEPz3EX_1ilQUt7_-PawvfV3Vrer-0C_gMrCZdx</recordid><startdate>200310</startdate><enddate>200310</enddate><creator>Tobler, Leslie H.</creator><creator>Stramer, Susan L.</creator><creator>Lee, Stephen R.</creator><creator>Masecar, Barbara L.</creator><creator>Peterson, Jon E.</creator><creator>Davis, E. Anne</creator><creator>Andrews, William E.</creator><creator>Brodsky, Jaye P.</creator><creator>Kleinman, Steven H.</creator><creator>Phelps, Bruce H.</creator><creator>Busch, Michael P.</creator><general>Blackwell Science Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200310</creationdate><title>Impact of HCV 3.0 EIA relative to HCV 2.0 EIA on blood-donor screening</title><author>Tobler, Leslie H. ; Stramer, Susan L. ; Lee, Stephen R. ; Masecar, Barbara L. ; Peterson, Jon E. ; Davis, E. Anne ; Andrews, William E. ; Brodsky, Jaye P. ; Kleinman, Steven H. ; Phelps, Bruce H. ; Busch, Michael P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4321-7a33389bed41cb1f260c6266d99c6b7ade2e4029ae9e6a093f5238368dbc133c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Blood Donors</topic><topic>Blood. Blood and plasma substitutes. Blood products. Blood cells. Blood typing. Plasmapheresis. Apheresis</topic><topic>Hepatitis C - diagnosis</topic><topic>Hepatitis C Antibodies - blood</topic><topic>Human viral diseases</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunoenzyme Techniques</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>RNA, Viral - blood</topic><topic>Transfusions. Complications. Transfusion reactions. Cell and gene therapy</topic><topic>Viral diseases</topic><topic>Viral hepatitis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tobler, Leslie H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stramer, Susan L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Stephen R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masecar, Barbara L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peterson, Jon E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, E. Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrews, William E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodsky, Jaye P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kleinman, Steven H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phelps, Bruce H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Busch, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Transfusion (Philadelphia, Pa.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tobler, Leslie H.</au><au>Stramer, Susan L.</au><au>Lee, Stephen R.</au><au>Masecar, Barbara L.</au><au>Peterson, Jon E.</au><au>Davis, E. Anne</au><au>Andrews, William E.</au><au>Brodsky, Jaye P.</au><au>Kleinman, Steven H.</au><au>Phelps, Bruce H.</au><au>Busch, Michael P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of HCV 3.0 EIA relative to HCV 2.0 EIA on blood-donor screening</atitle><jtitle>Transfusion (Philadelphia, Pa.)</jtitle><addtitle>Transfusion</addtitle><date>2003-10</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1452</spage><epage>1459</epage><pages>1452-1459</pages><issn>0041-1132</issn><eissn>1537-2995</eissn><coden>TRANAT</coden><abstract>BACKGROUND: In 1996, the Ortho HCV Version 3.0 ELISA Test System (HCV 3.0 EIA) was licensed in the United States for donor screening but was neither mandated nor universally implemented. Data from two studies comparing the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA and HCV 2.0 EIA are presented. The first study evaluated the differential performance in a cross‐section of screened whole‐blood donors after implementation of HCV 3.0 EIA; the second study evaluated the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA in plasma donors acutely infected with HCV, identified during routine Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA and HCV NAT (using Roche Ampliscreen plate assay) donor screening.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The first study evaluated HCV 3.0 EIA repeat‐reactive donations from four US blood centers, identified during the first 5 months of HCV 3.0 EIA implementation. HCV EIA repeat‐reactive donations confirmed by RIBA HCV 3.0 SIA were retested using both Ortho HCV Version 2.0 ELISA Test System and Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA. All EIA‐discordant donations were tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In the second study, Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA‐nonreactive, HCV PCR‐positive donors were enrolled in a follow‐up study in which the index and follow‐up samples were re‐evaluated by HCV 3.0 EIA.
RESULTS: In the first study, of 292,459 donations, 501 (0.17%) confirmed HCV 3.0 EIA‐reactive donations were identified; 15 (0.005%) were nonreactive by Ortho HCV 2.0 EIA and were all HCV RNA negative. In the second study, Ortho HCV 3.0 EIA retesting of Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA‐nonreactive, RNA‐positive index donations identified 16 (23%) as 3.0 EIA reactive. In 42 panels with a discordant time of seroconversion, HCV 3.0 EIA sero‐conversion preceded HCV 2.0 EIA in all cases (p < 0.001). Two donors with HCV 3.0 EIA‐reactive index donations never seroconverted by HCV 2.0 EIA during 160 to 180 days of follow‐up.
CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate that HCV 3.0 EIA compared to HCV 2.0 EIA can better detect 1) remote nonviremic HCV infections, 2) acute infection, and 3) HCV antibodies in cases of atypical seroconversion.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK and Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Inc</pub><pmid>14507279</pmid><doi>10.1046/j.1537-2995.2003.00521.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0041-1132 |
| ispartof | Transfusion (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2003-10, Vol.43 (10), p.1452-1459 |
| issn | 0041-1132 1537-2995 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75716063 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy Biological and medical sciences Blood Donors Blood. Blood and plasma substitutes. Blood products. Blood cells. Blood typing. Plasmapheresis. Apheresis Hepatitis C - diagnosis Hepatitis C Antibodies - blood Human viral diseases Humans Immunoenzyme Techniques Infectious diseases Medical sciences RNA, Viral - blood Transfusions. Complications. Transfusion reactions. Cell and gene therapy Viral diseases Viral hepatitis |
| title | Impact of HCV 3.0 EIA relative to HCV 2.0 EIA on blood-donor screening |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T04%3A54%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20HCV%203.0%20EIA%20relative%20to%20HCV%202.0%20EIA%20on%20blood-donor%20screening&rft.jtitle=Transfusion%20(Philadelphia,%20Pa.)&rft.au=Tobler,%20Leslie%20H.&rft.date=2003-10&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1452&rft.epage=1459&rft.pages=1452-1459&rft.issn=0041-1132&rft.eissn=1537-2995&rft.coden=TRANAT&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1537-2995.2003.00521.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E75716063%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=75716063&rft_id=info:pmid/14507279&rfr_iscdi=true |