ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2026
Development and validation of a risk prediction model and management strategy for red blood cell irregular antibodies a retrospective cohort study of 521 patients.
Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically identify independent risk factors for difficult cross-matching and to construct a predictive model for early clinical risk warning and stratified management. A derivation cohort of 521 patients with positive red blood cell irregular antibody screening results was retrospectively enrolled. Based on the screening results, patients were categorized into a 1-2 positive wells group (n = 428) and a 3 positive wells group (n = 93). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of difficult cross-matching. A simplified clinical risk scoring system was developed based on the regression coefficients, and the predictive performance of the model was evaluated. Multivariate analysis identified six independent influencing factors: 3 positive wells (OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.18-4.65), diagnosis of multiple myeloma (OR = 5.05, 95% CI: 2.54-10.05), hospitalization in the hematology department (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.27-3.98), age ≥ 60 years (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.12-3.48), pregnancy-related diseases (protective factor; OR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.73), and difficult blood typing (OR = 4.57, 95% CI: 2.30-9.08). The risk scoring model incorporating these factors demonstrated good predictive performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.819 (95% CI: 0.766-0.872), a sensitivity of 74.4%, and a specificity of 76.5%. Patients were stratified into three risk tiers (low, medium, and high) based on their scores, with corresponding differentiated clinical management pathways and resource allocation plans established. This study successfully identified and quantified key clinical and laboratory predictors for difficult cross-matching. The established risk scoring model demonstrates good predictive accuracy, providing a reliable tool for precise pre-transfusion risk assessment. The stratified management system based on this model facilitates a shift from reactive to proactive intervention in transfusion workflows, offering significant clinical translational value for optimizing blood bank resource allocation and ensuring transfusion safety for high-risk patients.
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.