ArticleCureus2024
Impact of Type and Screen Method on Turnaround Time and Man-Hour Utilization Compared to Conventional Coomb's Crossmatch: A Cross-Sectional Analytical Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Blood component transfusion is vital for various medical conditions, requiring thorough pretransfusion testing to ensure safety and compatibility. The Type and Screen (T and S) method allows for efficient detection of clinically significant antibodies while reducing unnecessary crossmatching. This study evaluates T and S's impact on turnaround time and man-hour utilization compared to conventional crossmatching. Methodology The study included 835 elective crossmatch requests. Blood grouping, antibody screening, and antihuman globulin (AHG) crossmatching were performed using column agglutination technology, while immediate saline crossmatching was done by tube technique. Turnaround time (TAT), man-hour utilization, and saved rates were calculated for both the T and S protocol and routine AHG crossmatch. Results In this study, 835 elective blood samples underwent antibody screening and immediate saline phase crossmatching, with validation by AHG phase crossmatch. The T and S protocol significantly reduced TAT for both first (51.24 vs. 71.56 minutes) and subsequent transfusions (17.47 vs. 39.67 minutes) compared to AHG crossmatching, with reductions being statistically significant (p < 0.0001). T and S also saved 279.28 man-hours (11.6 man-days), equating to 0.33 man-hours saved per sample. Conclusion Our study shows that the T and S protocol significantly enhances blood bank efficiency by reducing TAT and man-hour utilization compared to conventional AHG crossmatching. This improvement not only optimizes manpower but also makes the process more cost-effective.
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.