ArticleWorld journal of biological chemistry2023
Comparison of the conventional tube and erythrocyte-magnetized technology in titration of red blood cell alloantibodies.
Article in World journal of biological chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Pre-Transfusion Crossmatch Test Using Microscanner C3.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErythrocyte alloantibodies are mainly produced after immune stimulation, such as blood transfusion, pregnancy, and transplantation, and are the leading causes of severe hemolytic transfusion reactions and difficulty in blood grouping and matching. Therefore, antibody screening is critical to prevent and improve red cell alloantibodies. Routine tube assay is the primary detection method of antibody screening. Recently, erythrocyte-magnetized technology (EMT) has been increasingly used in clinical practice. This study intends to probe the application and efficacy of the conventional tube and EMT in red blood cell alloantibody titration to provide a reference for clinical blood transfusion.
aimTo investigate the application value of conventional tube and EMT in red blood cell alloantibody titration and enhance the safety of blood transfusion practice.
methodsA total of 1298 blood samples were harvested from blood donors at the Department of Blood Transfusion of our hospital from March 2021 to December 2022. A 5 mL blood sample was collected in tubing, which was then cut, and the whole blood was put into a test tube for centrifugation to separate the serum. Different red blood cell blood group antibody titers were simultaneously detected using the tube polybrene test, tube antiglobulin test (AGT), and EMT screening irregular antibody methods to determine the best test method.
resultsSimultaneous detection was performed through the tube polybrene test, tube AGT and EMT screening irregular antibodies. It was discovered that the EMT screening irregular antibody method could detect all immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) irregular antibodies, and the results of manual tube AGT were satisfactory, but the operation time was lengthy, and the equipment had a large footprint. The EMT screening irregular antibody assay was also conducted to determine its activity against type O Rh (D) red blood cells, and the outcomes were satisfactory. Furthermore, compared to the conventional tube method, the EMT screening irregular antibody method was more cost-effective and had significantly higher detection efficiency.
conclusionWith a higher detection rate, the EMT screening irregular antibody method can detect both IgG and IgM irregular antibodies faster and more effectively than the conventional tube method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.