ArticleBMC research notes2025
New insights into the sensitivity of Immulab reagent red blood cells compared to Bio-Rad, Grifols and QuidelOrtho.
Article in BMC research notes, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAntibody screening and identification facilitates the issue of antigen-negative blood for patients with alloantibodies to red blood cell (RBC) antigens, thereby maximizing blood safety and the survival of transfused donor cells. The sensitivity and specificity of reagent red blood cells (RRBCs) used in pre-transfusion testing varies between manufacturers. This Phase II study aimed to build on a previously published Phase I study comparing the analytical performance of four manufacturers' RRBCs in column agglutination technology (CAT). A total of 231 patient samples with a negative indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) results were tested using Immulab, Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho RRBCs. Phase II results were pooled with Phase I results to provide more accurate calculations of the RRBC analytical performance.
resultsThe sensitivity of the RRBCs used in the combined studies was 94.52% (95%CI 86.56-98.49%) for Bio-Rad, 81.48% (95%CI 71.30-89.25%) for Grifols, and 95.71% (95%CI 87.98-99.11%) for QuidelOrtho RRBCs. The sensitivity of Immulab RRBCs were stratified based on performance in the three CAT platforms: 100%, 95%CI 95.07-100.00% in Bio-Rad CAT, 100%, 95%CI 95.55-100.00% in Grifols CAT and 100%, 95%CI 94.87-100.00% in QuidelOrtho CAT.
conclusionsImmulab 0.8% RRBCs showed greater sensitivities and NPVs than the equivalent Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho RRBCs in Bio-Rad, Grifols, and QuidelOrtho CAT, respectively. These differences may have implications in clinical pre-transfusion settings.
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.