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

Safety, Resources, and Reason

Susan Feigenbaum, PhD; Jay S. Pepose, MD, PhD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109(7):941-943.

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

The proliferation of newly discovered pathogens and screening tests poses a growing dilemma for the eye-banking community: which of the multitude of serologic tests should be required to screen donors? Are there guidelines that can be developed to facilitate systematic evaluation of future screening proposals according to standards of medical appropriateness and cost effectiveness? What are the scientific data requirements for a successful evaluation program? Are there instances in which one could expect such evaluation to yield divergent recommendations for the screening of corneal tissue vs other organs/tissues?

This issue was most clearly brought into focus with the onset of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic in the United States in 1981¹ and later reports of AIDS transmission via blood transfusion.² By 1985, a serologic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibodies was developed and licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
St Louis, Mo

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