SynthesisTransfusion medicine (Oxford, England)2025
Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of concordance and accuracy of pretransfusion immunohematology routine tests.
Synthesis in Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of concordance and accuracy of pretransfusion immunohematology routine tests.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the concordance and comparative accuracy of commercially available immunohematology (IH) tests for pretransfusion testing.
backgroundPretransfusion tests are intended to ensure donor blood is matched with a compatible recipient. Automated testing has become the mainstay since the commercialisation of IH analysers, because of their reduced risk of human error and increased efficiency. METHODS/MATERIALS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify studies evaluating the concordance and sensitivity/specificity of IH tests for ABO/RhD typing, antibody screening, or antibody identification. Pairwise meta-analysis of concordance and sensitivity/specificity of IH tests was conducted when feasible.
resultsThe SLR identified 48 publications, of which 30 were included for meta-analysis. ID/IH gel (Bio-Rad), DG gel (Grifols), MTS/BioVue gel (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics), and Capture R (Immucor/Werfen) all had almost 100% pooled concordance with each other in ABO/RhD typing and antibody screening. Antibody identification results varied across studies, and pooled concordance rates were lower: 97.53% for DG gel versus ID/IH gel, 85.26% for ID/IH gel vs. MTS/BioVue gel, 85.54% for DG gel versus MTS/BioVue gel, and 71.19% for Capture R versus MTS/BioVue gel. For antibody screening, ID/IH gel, DG gel, and MTS/BioVue gel had pooled sensitivities of 94.23%, 96.31%, and 97.27%, respectively, with a pooled specificity of ~100% for all three tests.
conclusionAll tests had good concordance in ABO/RhD typing and antibody screening, and lower pooled concordance rates for antibody identification. For antibody screening, 95% pooled sensitivity and ~100% specificity were estimated for DG gel, MTS/BioVue gel, and ID/IH gel.
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.