Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36186255›Full record

ArticleJournal of laboratory physicians2022

Detection of ABO Discrepancy in a Case of Coronary Artery Disease by Conventional Tube Technique: A Miss by Column Agglutination Technology.

Suman Sudha Routray, Satya Prakash, Gopal Krushna Ray, Somnath Mukherjee, Ansuman Sahu

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of laboratory physicians, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [Rh blood group: Review and importance of genotyping].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Suman Sudha RoutrayDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Satya PrakashDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Gopal Krushna RayDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Somnath MukherjeeDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID 0000-0002-2272-5569
Ansuman SahuDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7901-3434

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ABO and Rh blood grouping of donors and recipients is the first and foremost step in pretransfusion compatibility testing. Conventional tube technique (CTT) is used to test for blood grouping and Rh D typing. But the procedure is cumbersome, and there may be subjective variation during the interpretation of the test results. The other disadvantage is that it is not adaptable to automation. Many newer techniques, such as the column agglutination technique (CAT) used for pretransfusion testing, are amenable to automation. It is being preferred to shift from CTT to semiautomated or fully automated CAT platforms or other newer technologies in many blood centers. The CAT has the added advantage of increased sensitivity and stable end-point results. The results in automated platforms using CAT are equally efficient and reliable as CTT. However, sometimes it is noted that CAT misses subgroups detection. Here, we report a case with a subgroup of A that was failed to be detected by the CAT using dextran acrylamide gel, signifying the use of CTT in evaluating blood group discrepancy.

Indexed as

ABOblood groupcolumn agglutination techniqueconventional tube technique

Identifiers

PMID36186255
PMCPMC9519257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.