ArticleCureus2024
Serological Weak Expression of D Antigen: A Retrospective Study of Blood Donors and Patients at a Teaching Hospital in Eastern India.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Prevalence of Serologic Weak D Phenotype in Iranian Blood Donors: A Nationwide Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
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 and objective RhD variants show altered D antigen expression, affecting their serological detection. Proper identification is crucial due to potential anti-D antibody formation. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the frequency and characteristics of D variant cases encountered during RhD typing in both blood donors and recipients and the transfusion implications. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of the D variant involving all the donors and patients whose samples were tested for blood grouping. RhD typing was done using monoclonal anti-D reagents via conventional tube technique (CTT) and column agglutination technique (CAT). Weak reactions (≤ 2+) were retested with different antisera. Weak D (Du) testing was conducted on serologically negative RhD results in donors. D variants were suspected based on discrepancies between CTT and CAT, weak reactions with different antisera, positive Du testing in RhD-negative donors, or anti-D alloimmunization in RhD-positive individuals. Data are presented in numbers and percentages. The odds ratio (OR) determining the association between different blood groups and age groups with the D variant in the donor population was calculated. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results D variants were found in 0.11% of donors and 0.039% of patients, with 21.7% being females. In the patient population, all the D variant cases were from surgical patients with transfusion requests; three received RhD-negative units, while seven did not require transfusions. D variants were more common in adult donors (25-44 years), with an 8.5 times higher occurrence in the AB group compared to the A group. Conclusions The D variant has a high prevalence in eastern India. Regional centers should be equipped to accurately identify and differentiate D variants, enabling improved management and effective conservation of RhD-negative units.
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.