This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David A. Mann, MD
Arlington, Mass

JAMA. 1986;256(17):2344-2345.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

The article by Ward et al¹ concerning an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for antibody to human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III suggests a potentially serious conceptual inconsistency in the current program for blood donor screening: the acceptance of a single initial negative EIA result as proof of seronegativity, while a unit twice positive out of three EIAs (denoted 2+/3) is considered seropositive. Since units with an initial negative EIA result were not tested further, one can assume that among the study's 66 621 initially negative units (which were accepted for transfusion) some would have been 2+/3 if three EIAs had been performed. Thus, some units that would have met exclusion criteria may have been allowed into the blood bank by the reported protocol. The number of these missed 2+/3 units can be estimated from the study data.

Of the units destined to be 2+/3, one would expect . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?