ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2018
Anti-D reagents should be chosen accordingly to the prevalence of D variants in the obstetric population.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Misclassification of RhD variants among pregnant women: a systematic review.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Pooled it
- Transfusion support for a woman withImmunohematology · 2022Article
- Anti-D reagents should be chosen accordingly to the prevalence of D variants in the obstetric population.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResolving ambiguous results of D antigen typing is crucial for appropriate and rational administration of anti-D immunoprophylaxis and transfusion practice in obstetric population. The aim of the study was to establish selection criteria of anti-D reagents for our population.
methodsA total of 12 689 samples from primiparous women in Split-Dalmatia County, Croatia, were typed for RhD antigen during the period of 5 years. Ambiguous results were submitted to additional serologic investigation and genotyping. RHD genotyping was performed by commercial genotyping kits (Ready Gene weak D
resultsThe prevalence of D variants was 0.42% (95% CI 0.31; 0.53). The most common partial D variant was D Va (RHD*05.05), with the prevalence of 0.08% (95% CI 0.03; 0.13). All weak D variants were weak D types 1, 2 and 3 (RHD*weak D type 1, RHD*weak D type 2, RHD*weak D type 3). Weak D samples were distinguishable from partial D in routine typing due to the difference in reactivity of partial D samples with clones D7B8 and RUM-1. Cell line RUM-1 gives weak or negative reactions with partial DVa category.
conclusionThe most common partial D variant in our population is DVa. It is recommended to use cell lines which do not strongly agglutinate DVa variant in routine RhD typing. The appropriate choice of reagents will enable the serology methods to recognize the cases in which RHD genotyping is required.
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.