ArticleCurrent protocols2022
Methods to Evaluate the Potential Clinical Significance of Antibodies to Red Blood Cells.
Article in Current protocols, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of four different in vitro assays for prediction of potential RBC antibody clinical significance.Transfusion · 2026Article
- Article
- In Vitro Phagocytosis Assays.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Methods to Evaluate the Potential Clinical Significance of Antibodies to Red Blood Cells.Current protocols · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immune-mediated red blood cell (RBC) destruction due to antibodies is an ongoing problem in transfusion medicine for the selection of the safest blood. Serological testing often revealed incompatibility with donors' RBCs. When this incompatible blood was transfused, destruction was due mostly to extravascular-mediated phagocytosis of the antibody-opsonized RBCs; however, intravascular hemolysis was sometimes observed without explanation. Based on serology, antibodies with potential for clinical sequalae could not be ascertained; thus, antigen-negative blood was usually selected for transfusion to avoid problems. Antibodies to antigens having very high frequency in the general population (>95%), however, made selection of antigen-negative blood difficult and sometimes impossible. Some patients, who were sensitized by previous transfusions or by pregnancy, developed multiple antibodies, again creating a problem for finding compatible blood for transfusion, without the ability to discern which of the antibodies may be clinically irrelevant and ignored. Transfusion medicine scientists began searching for an in vitro means to determine the in vivo outcome of transfusion of blood that was serologically incompatible. Methods such as chemiluminescence, monocyte-macrophage phagocytosis, and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) were described. Over the years, the monocyte monolayer assay (MMA) has emerged as the most reliable in vitro assay for the prediction of the clinical relevance of a given antibody. ADCC has not been fully studied but has the potential to be useful for predicting which antibodies may result in intravascular hemolysis. This article captures the protocols for the implementation and readout of the MMA and ADCC assays for use in predicting the clinical significance of antibodies in a transfusion setting. © 2022 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Monocyte monolayer assay (MMA) Basic Protocol 2: Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity assay (ADCC).
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.