ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2022
Investigation of Discrepant ABO Blood Grouping Results from an Autoanalyzer.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility ofAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Allelic Enhancement ofAnnals of laboratory medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A paucity of studies evaluating failed cases of ABO grouping using autoanalyzers exists. We investigated autoanalyzer rejected cases, including serologically suspicious ABO subgroups and discrepant ABO blood grouping results from Erytra Eflexis (Grifols, Spain), to demonstrate efficient use of autoanalyzers for ABO grouping. Methods: Samples requested for ABO grouping throughout 2020 were tested using two Eflexis instruments and standard ABO RhD and reverse grouping cards. Neonatal cards were not used. When necessary, a conventional tube technique (TUBE) was used to resolve rejected/discrepant Eflexis ABO grouping results. Results: The overall sample rejection rate (RR) was 3.2% (628/19,466), 1.3% of which were due to various error flags and 1.9% for discrepant results. Cases from neonates ≤1 year old accounted for 35.3% of the rejected cases based on Eflexis results. The ABO groups with the highest and lowest RR (excluding neonates) were A and O, respectively. The 628 samples resulted in 682 rejections, which were frequently associated with reverse grouping, including 28.4% against A Conclusions: The ABO group and a proportion of neonatal samples influenced the RR due to weak reverse grouping reactivity, especially toward B red cells. Confirmatory ABO grouping by TUBE in a new patient and/or extra rejection criteria for forward grouping are needed to detect cis-AB, which is relatively common in Korea.
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.