ArticleThe Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS2023
Is It Time to Switch from Conventional Coombs Crossmatching to the Type and Screen Protocol?
Article in The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The evaluation of patient blood management in lung resection under thoracotomy.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: ABO grouping, Rh typing and crossmatching are routinely done as part of pre-transfusion testing. The Type and Screen (T&S) protocol has been used in developed countries to ensure the survival of transfused red cells. In this study, we compared the safety, costs and turnaround times (TATs) of the T&S protocol and the conventional pre-transfusion testing protocol for patients who had been scheduled for elective obstetrical or gynaecological procedures. Methods: This observational study was conducted in three phases at the Department of Transfusion Medicine, Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute, Kerala, India and involved 1,800 patients from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jubilee Mission Medical College & Research Institute, Kerala, India over the course of 2 years. Phase I involved the traditional pre-transfusion testing and crossmatching of 150 patients. Phase II involved the use of the T&S protocol on 150 patients. Phase III involved the use of both the traditional and T&S protocols on 1,500 patients without considering the results of each protocol. The safety, costs and TATs of both protocols were compared. Results: In this study, the T&S protocol provided a safety 100% level when compared to the traditional protocol. The T&S protocol detected unexpected antibodies in 0.4% of cases, which would have gone unnoticed otherwise, demonstrating its usefulness. There was no significant difference in cost between the traditional crossmatching and T&S protocols. We discovered that using only the T&S protocol can save technologists 30% of their time. Conclusion: Implementing the T&S protocol as a pre-transfusion testing procedure can help improve hospital transfusion practices by supplying blood quickly and safely. Coombs crossmatching remains more of a tradition than a necessity.
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.