ArticleHematology, transfusion and cell therapy2023
Phenotyping of clinically significant blood group antigens among the South Indian donor population.
Article in Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Homologous blood transfusion and doping: Where are we now?Drug testing and analysis · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the analytical performance of four different manufacturer's reagent red blood cells in antibody detection and identification.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- Anti-Jk-b Antibodies and Hemolytic Disease of the Fetus and Newborn: Case-Based Learning.Cureus · 2024Article
- Assessment of Minor Blood Group System Antigens and Their Phenotype among Voluntary Blood Donors in Ethiopian Blood and Tissue Bank Service, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2023Article
- Higher prevalence of anti-S and anti-M in South India: A single-center cross-sectional analytical study.Asian journal of transfusion scienceArticle
- A cross-sectional pilot study to estimate the frequency of minor blood group alleles and phenotypes in RhD-negative North Indian blood donors by DNA microarray analysis.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
introductionData on the prevalence of clinically significant antigens (Rh, Kell, Kidd, Duffy, MNSs, Lewis, P and Lutheran) among the Indian donor population is sparse.
objectiveThis prospective study was aimed at determining the prevalence of 21 clinically significant antigens for the first time in the South Indian donor population.
methodA total of 672 regular O group blood donors were enrolled for Rh (C,c, E, e) and Kell (K) antigens typing. Of these, 188 donors were typed for other clinically significant antigens (k, Kp
resultsAntigen frequencies were expressed in percentages. In our study, R1R1 and rr were the most common phenotypes among D+ and D- donors, respectively. Among the Rh antigens, the e antigen was expressed by 97.5% and 100% of D+ and D- donors, respectively. The K antigen was found in only 0.15% of donors. In the Duffy and Kidd blood group system, Fy (a+b+) and Jk (a+b+) were the most frequent phenotypes, respectively. In the MNSs blood group system, M+N+ and S-s+ were the most common phenotypes reported. The Le (a-b+) was found to be the phenotype with the highest prevalence in the Lewis blood group system. The Lu (a-b+) was the only phenotype found in the Lutheran blood group system.
conclusionKnowledge regarding the prevalence of antigens in a given population is essential in developing cost-effective in-house panels and a rare donor registry comprising donors typed negative for a high-frequency antigen or a combination of common multiple antigens.
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.