ArticleTransfusion2020
Performance profile of an updated safety measure rapid assay for bacteria in platelets.
Article in Transfusion, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacterial Contamination of Platelet Products.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Evaluation of an improved rapid bacterial assay with untreated and pathogen-reduced platelets: Detection of Acinetobacter strains.Transfusion · 2021Article
- Supplemental findings of the 2019 National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey.Transfusion · 2021Article
- Performance profile of an updated safety measure rapid assay for bacteria in platelets.Transfusion · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2022
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Verax PGD rapid test for bacteria in platelets (PLTs) has been updated to simplify workflow and improve specificity and sensitivity by employing a novel sequential format. The performance of this updated version, called PGDprime, was evaluated to determine its suitability for use as an FDA-cleared "safety measure" to supplant the current PGD test. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThree consecutive cGMP-manufactured lots of PGDprime were evaluated for specificity (at three separate sites), sensitivity, reproducibility, interfering substances, assay robustness, and detection in analytical growth and ultralow-inoculum growth studies. PGDprime's performance was compared to that of PGD.
resultsSpecificity studies yielded no false-positive results among 3802 individual indate PLTs of seven different types (observed specificity, 100%). PGDprime detected all 10 PGD claim bacteria at the same limit of detection or better. Wild-type Gram-negative bacteria growing in PLTs were detected at earlier elapsed times than PGD by 12 to 30 hours. In growth studies, PGDprime detected bacteria growing in PLTs within the same 12-hour interval as PGD or 12 to 48 hours earlier. Assay reproducibility was not affected by operator, day of test, or manufacturing lot. PGDprime tolerated a wide variation in volume transfers, timing, temperature, and relative humidity and was not affected by 15 of 16 potential interferents found in samples at extremely high or low levels.
conclusionThe PGD test has been successfully updated to PGDprime with an innovative sequential assay format to deliver a robust simplified workflow and improved specificity and sensitivity.
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.