ArticleAsian journal of transfusion science
Implementing type and screen method replacing conventional antiglobulin crossmatch procedure for compatibility testing in elective protocol in a tertiary care hospital.
Article in Asian journal of transfusion science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serological and Clinical Evaluation of Incompatible Crossmatches Encountered in Pre-transfusion Testing.Cureus · 2026Article
- Article
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
introductionPretransfusion testing is an essential and important investigation to provide safe and fully compatible packed red blood cell (PRBC) unit to the recipient to prevent the fatal hemolytic transfusion reaction. Type and screen (T and S) procedure is one of the effective approaches in pretransfusion testing in which antibody screen (AS) negative recipients are transfused with an immediate saline phase compatible PRBC unit. In order to explore the feasibility of implementing T and S protocol in our institute, this study was carried out. The main aim of our study was to compare the T and S protocol in AS-negative recipients with anti-human globulin (AHG) phase crossmatch in patients requiring PRBC under elective protocol. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur study was a cross-sectional analytical study carried out in all the elective blood samples with a history of transfusion or pregnancy. In our study, 849 elective blood samples were subjected to antibody screening by reagent 3 red cell screening panel and AS-negative blood samples were subjected to immediate saline phase crossmatch, and compatible units were issued to the patients. The same samples were subjected to AHG phase crossmatch for validation.
resultsAmong 14,705 elective requests for PRBC 849 patients had a history of transfusion or pregnancy. Of 849 patients, no case was found to be positive for antibody screening. Totally around 1028 PRBC units were saline crossmatched and totally 677 PRBC units were issued to the patients under T and S protocol. Not even a single case where AHG crossmatch was incompatible when antibody screening was negative. There was a perfect agreement between T and S method and AHG phase crossmatch. Crossmatch transfusion ratio was reduced from 2.1-1.5 with the implementation of T and S protocol.
conclusionThis study validated and showed that there was a perfect agreement between T and S protocol and AHG phase crossmatch. All blood requests under elective protocol, the T and S method can be implemented for better utilization of technical workforce and better inventory management.
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.