Quality assessment and summary of findings according to the GRADE approach.

<p>aOR: adjusted odds ratio; aRR: adjusted risk ratio; HBV: hepatitis B virus; HCV: hepatitis C virus; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; MSM: men who have sex with men; OR: odds ratio; RR: risk ratio; TTI: transfusion transmissible infections</p><p>1 Inappropriate eligibility criteria (random donors are a mix of male and female, while all homosexuals included are male); control for confounding unclear (not mentioned in article); other limitations: homosexuals were solicited via the press, other donors were random samples)</p><p>2 Random samples with young, minority and first-time donor oversampled; possible recall bias; the possible difference between respondents and non-respondents is not known</p><p>3 Control for confounding unclear (not mentioned in the article); no control group was included (e. g. states where no change in deferral policy was implemented): several blood safety-related interventions were implemented during the 10-year period covered by this study; there is a potential decline in the number of HIV-positive donors presenting to donate because of earlier HIV diagnosis in more recent times; before the implementation of the new policy, different states/territories had different policies (permanent deferral or 5 year deferral since last MSM contact) and the implementation of the new policy was not established at the same moment in each state/territory.</p><p>4 Control for confounding unclear (not mentioned in the article); no control group was included (e. g. states where no change in deferral policy was implemented)</p><p>5 First-time donations by infected persons (53.3%) were 1.7-fold higher than those among the control group (31.1%), which suggests that test-seeking donations may have been numerous.</p><p>6 Control for confounding unclear (not clear for which factors adjustment was made); questionnaire used to obtain information</p><p>7 Methods for exposure and outcome variables unclear (risk factors not determined in the same way for all cases); not controlled for confounding ((not clear if individuals with MSM as risk factor also have other risk factors)</p><p>8 Inappropriate eligibility criteria (all subjects had positive anti-HCV findings by enzyme immunoassay); not controlled for confounding</p><p>9 Inappropriate eligibility criteria (cases and controls not matched); not controlled for confounding (individuals with MSM as risk factor also have other risk factors); 5 out of 7 cases having homosexual contact also admitted personal drug use; questionnaire used</p><p>10 Control for confounding unclear (only adjusted for intravenous drug use, but unclear if this is sufficient)</p><p>11 Control for confounding unclear (only adjusted for intravenous drug use, but unclear if this is sufficient); questionnaire used to obtain information</p><p>12 Control for confounding unclear (only donors with no histories of transfusion or intravenous drug abuse, but unclear if this is sufficient); interview used to obtain information</p><p>13 Inappropriate eligibility criteria (cases and controls not matched; all subjects positive by ELISA); unclear if cases and controls received same questionnaire; control for confounding unclear (donors do not have former intravenous drug addiction, but unclear if this is sufficient); questionnaire used to obtain information</p><p>14 Inappropiate eligibility criteria (cases and controls not matched; all subjects positive by ELISA); not controlled for confounding (individuals with MSM as risk factor can also have other risk factors); interview used to obtain information</p><p>15 Low number of events</p><p>16 Calculations made by the reviewer(s) using Review Manager software</p><p>17 Not able to calculate confidence interval (data lacking)</p><p>18 Raw data calculated based on total number of participants and percentages</p><p>19 Raw data not available</p><p>20 Confidence interval of adjusted odds ratio not available, only p-value</p><p>Quality assessment and summary of findings according to the GRADE approach.