ArticleTransfusion2025
Evaluation of nonspecific reactivity rates across three immunohematology testing platforms with assessment of subsequent specific alloantibody development.
Article in Transfusion, 2025. 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.
- Red Cell Alloimmunization Among Transfused Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: A Hospital-Based Study in Southwestern Uganda.Journal of blood medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGel and solid-phase testing platforms are commonly used for pretransfusion testing but are also prone to nonspecific reactivities (NSP) compared to tube testing. This study aims to characterize the features of NSPs in these platforms and how frequently NSPs precede specific antibody detection.
methodsAll antibody screens and identification panels performed between 5/2021-4/2023 by two automated and one manual platforms at a single institution were analyzed with IRB approval: solid-phase (Immucor, Norcross, GA), automated gel (Grifols, Los Angeles, CA), and manual gel (Ortho Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ). Testing platform, antibody identification, strength of reactivity, number of reactive reagent red cells, and RBC antibody history were extracted from chart review. Differences in reactivity strength were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and differences in the number of cells used to establish diagnoses of NSPs were compared using two-way ANOVA.
resultsDuring the 24-month study period, a total of 156,247 antibody screens were performed with 5491 positive screens, and NSP was identified on 358/5491 panels (6.6%). 271/5491 (4.9%) panels had NSP detected on non-tube platforms: 95 on solid-phase, 123 on automated gel, and 53 on manual gel. The mean strength of reactivity by agglutination for NSP was 1.7, 0.5, and 1.4, respectively (p < .001). In addition, 9/271 (3.3%) of all panels with NSP on gel or solid-phase were associated with the detection of specific alloantibodies in subsequent panels.
conclusionNonspecific reactions differ by platforms in specificity and strength. Solid-phase shows stronger reactivity, while automated gel has higher rates of positivity.
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.