Display Settings:


Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Transfusion. 2000 May;40(5):585-9.

False-negative testing errors in routine viral marker screening of blood donors. For the Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study.

Author information

  • 1Division of Research and Scientific Services, Blood Centers of the Pacific-Irwin Center, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. mpbusch@itsa.ucsf.edu



The contribution of testing errors to the risk of virus transmission by transfusion depends on the rate of false-negative testing errors and the prevalence of infected seropositive donations. Although the false-negative testing error rate has been estimated at 0.1 to 1 percent on the basis of proficiency studies, it has not previously been measured in routine donor screening.


A 1991 to 1995 database containing 5,153,153 donations from 1.5 x 10(6) donors (including autologous donors) was searched to identify donors who tested seropositive for HIV, HCV, HTLV-I or II and who attempted subsequent donations. The false-negative rate in routinely screened follow-up donations was determined, and false-negative cases were investigated to identify the cause.


Subsequent donations (n = 2015) by 1224 donors with confirmed-positive results were identified. Eleven (0.5%) of these donations did not react in EIA. Ten of the 11 false-negative cases were attributable to borderline-reactive donations. On subsequent donations, there were borderline-nonreactive results on HTLV-I (2 cases), first-generation HCV (5 cases), and second-generation HCV (3 cases) EIAs. The final case was strongly reactive for HCV in a second-generation EIA on two donations (signal-to-cutoff [S:C] ratio >3.5), followed by a baseline nonreactive result on a third donation (S:C = 0.05).


False-negative testing results occur infrequently during routine infectious-disease donor screening. Although most false-negative results occurred with borderline-reactive HTLV-II samples and/or early-generation HCV EIAs, frank technical errors (e.g., sample mixup or failure to add sample to EIA well) also occur at a low rate (0.05%; 95% CI, 0-1.5%). Process enhancements designed to reduce errors (e.g., enhanced automation of data management and testing systems and process controls for EIAs) are warranted to detect and prevent false-negative results.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Blackwell Publishing
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk