ArticleBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2022
ABO antibody titres: a multisite comparative study of equivalency and reproducibility for automated solid-phase and haemagglutination titration, and manual dilution with gel column agglutination technology.
Article in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2022. 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.
- ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation with high isoagglutinin titres: practice pattern and problem solving: a German multi-centre survey.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Laboratory approaches in desensitization for ABO-incompatible transplantation.Clinical transplantation and research · 2025Review
- Evaluation of different methods for antibody titre determination in ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundABO antibody titres are important in many clinical decisions; however, much variability is observed in titre results. For reliable and reproducible titre results, automated ABO titration methods have been developed. In this 10-site study, we evaluated the equivalency of the automated ABO titration assays on the Galileo NEO, a fully automated blood bank analyzer (Immucor, Inc.) to manual titration with gel Column Agglutination Technology (CAT), as well as the reproducibility of both methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen different locations participated in this study. The equivalency study included 70 random samples at each site. The reproducibility study tested the same blinded 30-sample panel at each study site. Anti-A and anti-B IgM and IgG antibody titres were tested with both the automated and manual methods; additionally, dithiothreitol (DTT) treatment was used to inactivate IgM antibodies in the manual CAT method.
resultsThe equivalency between CAT manual method and Galileo NEO automated titres at each site ranged from 38 to 88%; equivalency for each isotype was 66.2% for IgM, 60.6% for IgG, and 88.5% for DTT-treated IgG. The reproducibility study evaluated the titre variation of each sample obtained from the 10 sites. The average titre ranges (in doubling dilutions) for the automated and manual methods, respectively, were 2.15±1.0 and 4.03±1.8 for IgM, and 1.53±0.7 and 4.10±1.9 for IgG; for the manual DTT-treated IgG, the average titre range was 3.45±1.8 doubling dilutions. DISCUSSION: The results demonstrated that the Galileo NEO automated and manual CAT ABO titres are not equivalent. However, the study also demonstrated that titre reproducibility is enhanced with the Galileo NEO automated ABO titration assays relative to the manual CAT ABO titration method. Therefore, to improve management of patients receiving care across multiple institutions, our study supports the use of automated ABO titration.
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.