ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2020
Agreement of stall-side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monitoring the positive conversion of anti-erythrocyte antibodies in blood transfusion donor horses.Journal of equine science · 2023Article
- Blood Transfusion in Equids-A Practical Approach and Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Review
- Investigation of erythrocyte antigen frequencies in draft horse populations in Japan to assess blood donor suitability.Journal of equine science · 2021Article
- Prevalence of Ca Blood Type and Alloantibodies in a Population of Horses from Italy.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Agreement of stall-side and laboratory major crossmatch tests with the reference standard method in horses.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCrossmatching is used to prevent life-threatening transfusion reactions in horses. Laboratory methods are laborious and technically challenging, which is impractical during emergencies. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesEvaluate agreement between a stall-side crossmatch kit (KIT) and a laboratory method (LAB) in horses with known and unknown blood types. ANIMALS: Twenty-four blood-typed and alloantibody-screened healthy adult horses (Aim 1) and 156 adult horses of unknown blood type (Aim 2).
methodsProspective, blinded study. Expected positive (n = 35) and negative (n = 36) crossmatches among 24 antibody and blood-typed horses were used to determine sensitivity and specificity of KIT and LAB against the reference method. Agreement in 156 untyped horses was evaluated by reciprocal crossmatch (n = 156).
resultsSensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) for LAB and KIT compared with expected reactions was 77.1% (59.9%-90.0%) and 91.4% (77.0%-98.2%), and specificity 77.8% (60.9%-89.9%) and 73.5% (55.6%-87.1%), respectively. The KIT was 100% sensitive for Aa reactions; LAB was 100% sensitive for Qab; and both were 100% sensitive for Ca. Cohen's κ agreement for LAB and KIT with expected positive and negative reactions (n = 71) was moderate (0.55 [0.36-0.74]) and substantial (0.65 [0.47-0.82]), respectively. Agreement was fair comparing LAB with KIT in Aim 1 (0.30 [0.08-0.52]) and in untyped horses in Aim 2 (0.26 [0.11-0.41]). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Agreement between KIT and LAB with expected reactions was blood type dependent. Performance of both methods depends on blood type prevalence.
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.