Jessica Guglielmino, Fiona J Morris, Claire M Grattidge, Denise E Jackson
{"title":"Evaluation of the analytical performance of four different manufacturer's reagent red blood cells in antibody detection and identification.","authors":"Jessica Guglielmino, Fiona J Morris, Claire M Grattidge, Denise E Jackson","doi":"10.1186/s13104-024-06960-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The detection/identification of clinically significant antibodies to red cell antigens form the foundation for safe transfusion practices. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of commercially available 0.8% reagent red blood cells (RRBCs) in Australia. 166 patient-derived plasma samples with a positive indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) were tested using column agglutination technology (CAT) with Immulab, Bio-Rad, Grifols and QuidelOrtho screening and identification RRBCs with the respective manufacturer's proprietary CAT system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>False-negative antibody screening and identification results were obtained with Bio-Rad (3/61), Grifols (14/68) and Quidel-Ortho (3/59) RRBCs when tested with the respective manufacturer's proprietary CAT system. Zero false-negative results were observed with Immulab RRBCs when tested with samples across all platforms. The sensitivity of the RRBCs used in this study were calculated to be 95.83% (95%CI 88.30-99.13%) for Bio-Rad RRBCs, 82.50% (95%CI 72.38-90.09%) for Grifols RRBCs and 95.65% (95%CI 87.82-99.09%) for QuidelOrtho RRBCs. The sensitivity of Immulab RRBCs were stratified based on performance in the 3 CAT platforms: Bio-Rad CAT (100%, 95%CI 95.01-100%), Grifols CAT (100%, 95%CI 95.49-100%) and QuidelOrtho CAT (100%, 95%CI 94.79-100%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RRBCs used in antibody detection and identification vary in diagnostic performance and should therefore be carefully considered before being implemented in routine patient testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":9234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Research Notes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460001/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Research Notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06960-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The detection/identification of clinically significant antibodies to red cell antigens form the foundation for safe transfusion practices. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of commercially available 0.8% reagent red blood cells (RRBCs) in Australia. 166 patient-derived plasma samples with a positive indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) were tested using column agglutination technology (CAT) with Immulab, Bio-Rad, Grifols and QuidelOrtho screening and identification RRBCs with the respective manufacturer's proprietary CAT system.
Results: False-negative antibody screening and identification results were obtained with Bio-Rad (3/61), Grifols (14/68) and Quidel-Ortho (3/59) RRBCs when tested with the respective manufacturer's proprietary CAT system. Zero false-negative results were observed with Immulab RRBCs when tested with samples across all platforms. The sensitivity of the RRBCs used in this study were calculated to be 95.83% (95%CI 88.30-99.13%) for Bio-Rad RRBCs, 82.50% (95%CI 72.38-90.09%) for Grifols RRBCs and 95.65% (95%CI 87.82-99.09%) for QuidelOrtho RRBCs. The sensitivity of Immulab RRBCs were stratified based on performance in the 3 CAT platforms: Bio-Rad CAT (100%, 95%CI 95.01-100%), Grifols CAT (100%, 95%CI 95.49-100%) and QuidelOrtho CAT (100%, 95%CI 94.79-100%).
Conclusions: RRBCs used in antibody detection and identification vary in diagnostic performance and should therefore be carefully considered before being implemented in routine patient testing.
BMC Research NotesBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
363
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍:
BMC Research Notes publishes scientifically valid research outputs that cannot be considered as full research or methodology articles. We support the research community across all scientific and clinical disciplines by providing an open access forum for sharing data and useful information; this includes, but is not limited to, updates to previous work, additions to established methods, short publications, null results, research proposals and data management plans.