ArticleBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud2024
Ten years of the immunogenetics laboratory performance assessment programme and its impact on the donor and transplant network
Article in Biomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction. The use of immunological tests before solid organ transplantation is essential to reduce the risk of rejection and post-transplant complications. Therefore, quality control systems in laboratories performing them are necessary for clinical practice. The Colombian Instituto Nacional de Salud implemented the external evaluation program of transplant immunogenetics laboratory performance in 2014. Objective. To evaluate the performance of the laboratories that carried out five of the immunological tests for transplants in Colombia between 2014 and 2023, according to information from the external evaluation program of transplant immunogenetics laboratory performance. Materials and methods. We conducted a study of laboratory performance considering five immunological tests for transplantation: HLA, qualitative and quantitative PRA (Panel Reactive Antibodies), isolated antigen, and cross-matching tests. We collected data from reports of each laboratory. Based on the comparisons between laboratories, their performance was rated as “good”, “acceptable”, or “unacceptable” for each test. We calculated proportions and an analysis of predicted values with a 95% confidence interval. Results. The number of participating laboratories varied between 5 and 12, depending on the test. The proportion of laboratories with “good” performance was lower in the first year. The best performance was for qualitative PRA, rated as good in all the laboratories for eight years. In HLA (2014), qualitative PRA (2017 and 2019), crossmatch tests (2019), and single antigen (2017 and 2019) tests, the laboratories had a lower percentage of “good” performance than expected. Conclusion. “Good” performance was observed in all the laboratories in each test during the last three years, except for HLA and quantitative PRA.
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.