ReviewLaboratory medicine2016
Clinical Utility of Genotyping Human Erythrocyte Antigens.
Review in Laboratory medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular red cell genotyping of rare blood donors in South Africa to enhance rare donor-patient blood matching.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- Transfusion-associated adverse events and implementation of blood safety measures - findings from the 2017 National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey.Transfusion · 2020Article
- Identification of antibody specificity using adsorption-elution studies with incompatible packed red cell unit.Asian journal of transfusion scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional serological methods, which have been used for decades to evaluate the human erythrocyte antigen (HEA) composition of recipient and donor specimens, have some serious limitations. Specific reagent antisera are not available for all clinically relevant antigens (eg, V antigen). Reagent antisera are expensive, and serological testing is labor intensive. The results of serological testing are subjective and semiquantitative (eg, microscopic, weak, 1+, 2+, 3+, 4+), and may vary from one technologist to another. Further, in many clinical situations, serological testing may be difficult or impossible.Recent developments in nucleic acid-based testing (molecular diagnostics) have made it possible to genotype HEA in the clinical laboratory. Most allelic variations occur due to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which can be detected and from which the phenotypes can be predicted. HEA genotyping offers several technical and clinical advantages compared with serological testing. The Immucor PreciseType HEA Test is the first and currently the only platform for clinical testing approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to our knowledge.
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.