Abstract: Objective To investigate the sense of keeping the border area, find the re-entry detective strategy, follow-up detection were used to check the blood donors with false-reactive results in basic-level blood station.Methods during January 2014 to February 2016, 712 cases which reacted in single reagent（including border area）were selected. Based on ELISA test results, specimens were divided into border area group and single-reagent-reactive group. After more than six months of shielding,re-entry specimens were tested by ELISA in double reagent, nucleic acid testing (NAT) and confirmatory test.Results In the first ELISA test, the result were confirmed by NAT(or TPPA) , the difference of the false-reactive rate of HBsAg and anti-TP in the border area group and single-reagent-reactive group was statistically significant, P<0.05.While the difference of anti-HCV false-reactive rate between the two groups has no statistical significance. After more than six months of shielding, the re-entry test showed that, 1 of 213 in the border area group was reactive in NAT, but not confirmed by the confirmatory test, 3 of the 268 in the single-reagent-reactive group were confirmed by NAT and confirmatory test.Conclusion Since NAT was carried out broadly under the present detection mode, if keep on setting border area, it will increase the false-reactive specimens, may result in blood waste.

Key words: False-reactive, Unpaid blood donor, Re-entry, Nucleic acid testing