ReviewHLA2026
Recommendations for HLA Genotyping Data Standards and Clinical Laboratory Staffing Considerations.
Review in HLA, 2026. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid advances in HLA genotyping technology and the massive amounts of associated data have created a demand for better and more efficient laboratory data management practices. However, while some standards have been developed, there is a need for comprehensive guidelines that include all laboratory data-related processes such as messaging, storage and retention, documentation, reporting, validation and quality control. An important consideration in developing these recommendations is the feasibility of application in a laboratory setting without posing a substantial staff and cost burden for implementation and long-term maintenance and the availability of publicly available tools. This article presents evidence-based recommendations for multiple laboratory general data practices, focusing on HLA genotyping data and associated meta-data. These recommendations are compiled by experts in the fields of histocompatibility and immunogenetics (H&I) and representation from multiple H&I worldwide professional society leadership with the long-term goal of adopting these recommendations in future laboratory accreditation requirements.
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.