ArticleHematology, transfusion and cell therapy
Platelet antibodies identification: comparison between two laboratory tests.
Article in Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid anti-HPA-1a antibody quantification with a Luminex bead-based assay: A method evaluation.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of MAIPA assay and PakAuto assay for the diagnosis of primary immune thrombocytopenia.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Article
- [Human platelet antigen: brief review of the topic and its clinical significance].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2024Review
- Low Prevalence of HLA-G Antibodies in Lung Transplant Patients Detected using MAIPA-Adapted Protocol.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPlatelet antibody identification is indispensable for diagnosing the human platelet antigen (HPA) or human leukocyte antigen (HLA) immunization, mostly because it can restrict the compatibility and results of transfusions. Correct detection of these antibodies is of utmost importance for the diagnosis and treatment.
methodWe present 16 platelet alloimmunization results, comparing two tests with different technologies: the MAIPA (monoclonal antibody immobilization of platelet antigens), as a reference technique, and a bead-based assay, the Pak-Lx.
resultsEleven samples (68.75%) showed agreement in both techniques. Two tests were false negatives in the Pak-Lx: a pan-reactivity in GPIIbIIIa and an anti-HPA-9b. On the other hand, the Pak-Lx was more sensitive to detect a decreasing anti-HPA-5b. The Pak-Lx found an anti-HPA-2b positive, but with a low median fluorescent intensity (MFI), suggesting a false-positive result. Moreover, in one case, the MAIPA was negative for a positive Pak-Lx HLA.
conclusionAntibody platelet diagnosis can sometimes be challenging. The methods seemed similar, the Pak-Lx being faster and simpler than the MAIPA, and they can be complementary to solve clinical issues.
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.