ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2025
Evaluation of two methods for detecting anti-A and anti-B hemolysins in blood donors: a prospective study in Abidjan.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: anti-A and anti-B hemolysins are IgG antibodies capable of causing intravascular hemolysis during non-ABO-identical transfusions, particularly with plasma-rich components. Their identification in blood donors is crucial for transfusion safety. This study aimed to compare the performance of indirect agglutination and functional hemolysis assays in detecting these antibodies. Methods: we conducted a prospective comparative study involving 300 voluntary blood donors recruited at Cocody University Hospital between January and March 2025. Each sample was tested using two parallel methods: (1) an indirect agglutination assay performed after thermal inactivation of IgM antibodies; and (2) a functional hemolysis test employing guinea pig complement. Hemolysin titers were considered significant if ≥32 for agglutination or ≥8 for hemolysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent factors associated with a positive hemolysis test result. Results: agglutination detected 54 positive cases (18.0%), and hemolysis identified 30 cases (10.0%). Significant titers were found in 7.4% (agglutination) versus 60.0% (hemolysis) of positive cases. Approximately 70% of positive donors were blood group O with either method. Overall concordance between methods was 92% (κ = 0.67). The agglutination method had 100% sensitivity and 91.1% specificity. A history of pregnancy was the only factor significantly associated with a positive hemolysis test (adjusted odds ratio = 2.77; 95% CI: 1.08-7.14; p = 0.033). Conclusion: the functional hemolysis test more specifically identifies antibodies with potential transfusion risk. In resource-limited settings, targeted screening based on ABO group, antibody titers, and donor immunological history (especially pregnancy) could improve transfusion safety.
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.