ArticleVox sanguinis2026
Comparative analysis of serological reactivity in genetically confirmed Rh variants within a recipient population.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 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
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDetecting Rh variants in transfusion recipients is essential to prevent alloimmunization. This study compared the serological reactivity of various monoclonal antibodies using two techniques (gel column agglutination and microplate technology at room temperature) in relation to genetically confirmed Rh variants. MATERIALS AND
methodsOver an 18-month period, all EDTA blood samples referred to the molecular laboratory were analysed. RHD and RHCE genotyping was performed, and samples carrying at least one variant allele underwent serological testing. Statistical analysis was performed using the McNemar test (p < 0.05).
resultsAmong 610 samples, 118 (19%) carried at least one Rh variant. The most frequent alleles were RHCE*CeRN (n = 39) and RHD*weak D type 1 (n = 14). Weak RhD (types 1 and 3) and partial RhD from RHD*DAR were serologically weakened (<4+) with both methods. Homozygosity for RHCE*CeRN was suggested by serological weakening of RH5 with both methods, whereas heterozygosity was indicated by serological weakening of RH2 with microplate only. Other variants with a few samples (RH1 of RHD*weak D type 2 and 5, RH2 of RHD*RHD-CE (4-7)-D, RH3 of RHCE*cEIV, RH4 of RHCE*ceJAL and RH5 of RHCE*ceMO.01 and RHCE*ceAR) showed weak serological intensities but lacked statistical confirmation. Finally, 39% of Rh variants were not detected as serologically weakened by both serological methods.
conclusionPhenotyping remains the first-line screening tool. Weak serological intensities help guide molecular investigations. However, detection of Rh variants using serology alone is highly variable. Combining different clones and techniques improves sensitivity.
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.