ArticleTransfusion2013
Lot-to-lot variability in HLA antibody screening using a multiplexed bead-based assay.
Article in Transfusion, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The utility of second single antigen bead assay: Clearing the water or stirring up mud?Human immunology · 2020Article
- Towards uniformity in the definition of acceptable mismatches for highly sensitized patients.HLA · 2019Article
- Imaging Translational and Post-Translational Gene Regulatory Dynamics in Living Cells with Antibody-Based Probes.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2017Review
- Interpreting Anti-HLA Antibody Testing Data: A Practical Guide for Physicians.Transplantation · 2016Review
- Utility of HLA Antibody Testing in Kidney Transplantation.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2015Review
- Interlaboratory Comparison of the Results of Lifecodes LSA Class I and Class II Single Antigen Kits for Human Leukocyte Antigen Antibody Detection.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying antibodies to HLA (anti-HLA) by solid-phase assays is used to screen blood donors to mitigate transfusion-related acute lung injury risk. Various cutoffs for detection assays have been proposed in the literature; however, these do not take into consideration lot-to-lot variability of commercially available assays. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsSamples from 93 nontransfused males were tested using five different lots of a multiplex bead-based anti-HLA detection kit. A subset of 17 samples was tested on 5 days using a single lot. An additional 96 samples from donations with varied anti-HLA levels were tested using kits from two different lots. Results were reported as a normalized background (NBG) ratio.
resultsFor the 93 nontransfused donors, NBG values generated using the reference lot were significantly higher than those obtained with three of the four comparator lots. However, for the 96 samples with low-, moderate-, and higher-level anti-HLA, Class I (CL-I) values were 1.4 times lower and Class II (CL-II) values were 1.2 times lower using the reference versus comparator lot. For CL-I antibodies the between-lot standard deviation (SD) was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.60), while the between-day SD was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.08-1.52). Similarly, for CL-II antibodies the between-lot SD was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.95), while the between-day SD was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.43-0.60).
conclusionsThere is interlot variability in the tested HLA detection assay as well as significant bias between lots. It may be reasonable to develop a new cutoff when a new lot is obtained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.