ArticleBMC research notes2024
Evaluation of the analytical performance of four different manufacturer's reagent red blood cells in antibody detection and identification.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. 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.
- New insights into the sensitivity of Immulab reagent red blood cells compared to Bio-Rad, Grifols and QuidelOrtho.BMC research notes · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe detection/identification of clinically significant antibodies to red cell antigens form the foundation for safe transfusion practices. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of commercially available 0.8% reagent red blood cells (RRBCs) in Australia. 166 patient-derived plasma samples with a positive indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) were tested using column agglutination technology (CAT) with Immulab, Bio-Rad, Grifols and QuidelOrtho screening and identification RRBCs with the respective manufacturer's proprietary CAT system.
resultsFalse-negative antibody screening and identification results were obtained with Bio-Rad (3/61), Grifols (14/68) and Quidel-Ortho (3/59) RRBCs when tested with the respective manufacturer's proprietary CAT system. Zero false-negative results were observed with Immulab RRBCs when tested with samples across all platforms. The sensitivity of the RRBCs used in this study were calculated to be 95.83% (95%CI 88.30-99.13%) for Bio-Rad RRBCs, 82.50% (95%CI 72.38-90.09%) for Grifols RRBCs and 95.65% (95%CI 87.82-99.09%) for QuidelOrtho RRBCs. The sensitivity of Immulab RRBCs were stratified based on performance in the 3 CAT platforms: Bio-Rad CAT (100%, 95%CI 95.01-100%), Grifols CAT (100%, 95%CI 95.49-100%) and QuidelOrtho CAT (100%, 95%CI 94.79-100%).
conclusionsRRBCs used in antibody detection and identification vary in diagnostic performance and should therefore be carefully considered before being implemented in routine patient testing.
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.