ArticleVox sanguinis2026
Optimization of the antibody identification interval in a high-volume transfusion centre.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 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.
- Optimization of the antibody identification interval in a high-volume transfusion centre.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesNo established standards currently exist regarding the optimal interval for repeating antibody identification. Considering both transfusion safety and resource constraints, this study aimed to investigate the feasibility of extending the interval between antibody identification tests in a high-volume transfusion setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 153,526 records over a 7-year period in which antibody identification was repeated at 7-day intervals under current practice. Cases with autoantibodies, non-specific antibodies, drug-related antibodies, passive anti-D from Rhesus immunoglobulin (RhIG) or unidentified antibodies were excluded. Time intervals to newly detected antibodies (0-7, 8-14, 15-21 and 22-30 days) were analysed in transfused patients with at least one pre-existing antibody.
resultsA total of 5806 antibodies were detected from 4835 patients (3.15%). Of these, 217 antibodies were detected in 155 patients (3.21%) who were known to previously possess at least one antibody. Antibody development was most frequently detected at 8-14 days post transfusion (16 cases, 35.56%), followed by 22-30 days (14 cases, 31.11%), 15-21 days (10 cases, 22.22%) and 0-7 days (5 cases, 11.11%). The median time to new antibody detection was 15.5 days (interquartile range, 10-26 days).
conclusionThis study proposes an optimal interval for antibody identification in settings with a high prevalence of transfusion-dependent patients and resource constraints. A 14-day interval has the potential to reduce personnel workload and costs while maintaining transfusion safety.
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.