| hepatitis {brglm2} | R Documentation |
Post-transfusion hepatitis: impact of non-A, non-B hepatitis surrogate tests
Description
Data from a randomized double-blind trial to assess whether
withholding donor blood positive for the non-A, non-B ("NANB")
surrogate markers would reduce the frequency of post-transfusion
hepatitis. The dataset contains 4588 subjects enrolled from 1988
to 1992 into two study groups that received allogenic blood from
which units positive for NANB surrogate markers were withheld (n =
2311) or not withheld (n = 2277). Subjects were followed up
for 6 months and assessed for the presence of post-transfusion
hepatitis.
Usage
hepatitis
Format
A data frame with 28 rows and the following 6 columns:
-
city: Subjects were recruited from 3 Canadian Red Cross Society Blood Centres and 13 university-affiliated hospitals in 3 cities: Toronto, Hamilton and Winnipeg. -
group: Eligible subjects were assigned to one of two allogenic blood recipient groups. One group received products that had only routine Canadian transfusion-transmissible disease marker screening (no-withhold). The other group received only products that were not positive for NANB surrogate markers (withhold). -
time: Hepatitis C (HCV) screening was introduced in Canada in May, 1990. Subjects were recruited into the study before (pre) and after (post) the introduction of anti-HCV testing. -
HCV: Post-transfusion HCV hepatitis present (1) or absent (0). -
nonABC: Post-transfusion non-A, non-B, non-C hepatitis present (1) or absent (0) -
counts: Number of subjects
Source
Data is from Blajchman et al. (1995), also analyzed in Bull et al. (2002), and is also provided by the pmlr R package.
References
Bull S B, Mak C, Greenwood C M T (2002). A modified score function estimator for multinomial logistic regression in small samples. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 39, 57-74. doi:10.1016/S0167-9473(01)00048-2
Blajchman M A, Bull S B and Feinman S V (1995). Post-transfusion hepatitis: impact of non-A, non-B hepatitis surrogate tests. The Lancet, 345, 21–25. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91153-7