ABO Antibody Titer Testing Harmonization in Korea: A 5-Year Analysis of External Quality Control Data.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Annals of Laboratory Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-02 DOI:10.3343/alm.2024.0521
Han Joo Kim, Yousun Chung, Sang-Hyun Hwang, Heung-Bum Oh, Hyungsuk Kim, Dae-Hyun Ko
{"title":"ABO Antibody Titer Testing Harmonization in Korea: A 5-Year Analysis of External Quality Control Data.","authors":"Han Joo Kim, Yousun Chung, Sang-Hyun Hwang, Heung-Bum Oh, Hyungsuk Kim, Dae-Hyun Ko","doi":"10.3343/alm.2024.0521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current ABO titration methods lack standardization and harmonization. We analyzed the consistency of ABO antibody titer testing among Korean laboratories and discussed future directions for standardization by analyzing external quality control data collected by the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service over 5 yrs (2019-2023). The analysis included the number of participating institutions and methods, as well as the proportion of acceptable results. To compare column agglutination technology (CAT) and tube methods, we created a normalized variable: ([log<sub>2</sub> titer of laboratory test result]-[mean of log<sub>2</sub> titer for the peer group]). The number of participating institutions and methods increased over time. The use of CAT methods expanded, whereas that of tube methods declined. The proportion of acceptable results ranged from 84.0% to 100%, with no significant differences between CAT and tube methods. An F-test revealed no significant variance differences among institutions using these methods. Tube methods demonstrated lower variance in anti-human globulin testing, and room temperature tube methods exhibited lower variance than that of CAT methods. Domestic laboratories demonstrated highquality performance in ABO antibody titer testing, with no significant differences in acceptable result rates or variance across methods. Continuous efforts toward standardization remain essential.</p>","PeriodicalId":8421,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Laboratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"334-338"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11996683/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2024.0521","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current ABO titration methods lack standardization and harmonization. We analyzed the consistency of ABO antibody titer testing among Korean laboratories and discussed future directions for standardization by analyzing external quality control data collected by the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service over 5 yrs (2019-2023). The analysis included the number of participating institutions and methods, as well as the proportion of acceptable results. To compare column agglutination technology (CAT) and tube methods, we created a normalized variable: ([log2 titer of laboratory test result]-[mean of log2 titer for the peer group]). The number of participating institutions and methods increased over time. The use of CAT methods expanded, whereas that of tube methods declined. The proportion of acceptable results ranged from 84.0% to 100%, with no significant differences between CAT and tube methods. An F-test revealed no significant variance differences among institutions using these methods. Tube methods demonstrated lower variance in anti-human globulin testing, and room temperature tube methods exhibited lower variance than that of CAT methods. Domestic laboratories demonstrated highquality performance in ABO antibody titer testing, with no significant differences in acceptable result rates or variance across methods. Continuous efforts toward standardization remain essential.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ABO抗体滴度检测在韩国的统一:一个5年的外部质量控制数据分析。
目前的ABO滴定方法缺乏标准化和协调性。我们分析了国内实验室ABO抗体滴度检测的一致性,并通过分析韩国外部质量评估服务协会(Korean Association of external quality Assessment Service)在5年(2019-2023年)期间收集的外部质量控制数据,讨论了标准化的未来方向。分析包括参与机构和方法的数量,以及可接受结果的比例。为了比较柱凝集技术(CAT)和试管方法,我们创建了一个归一化变量:([实验室检测结果的log2滴度]-[同级组log2滴度的平均值])。随着时间的推移,参与的机构和方法越来越多。CAT法的使用扩大,而试管法的使用减少。可接受结果的比例为84.0% ~ 100%,CAT法与试管法之间无显著差异。f检验显示,使用这些方法的机构之间没有显著的方差差异。试管法在抗人球蛋白检测中的方差较低,室温试管法在抗人球蛋白检测中的方差低于CAT法。国内实验室在ABO抗体滴度检测中表现出高质量的性能,不同方法的可接受结果率或方差无显著差异。继续努力实现标准化仍然至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Laboratory Medicine
Annals of Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
12.20%
发文量
100
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Laboratory Medicine is the official journal of Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. The journal title has been recently changed from the Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine (ISSN, 1598-6535) from the January issue of 2012. The JCR 2017 Impact factor of Ann Lab Med was 1.916.
期刊最新文献
Natural Killer Cell Assays: Clinical Applications and Future Directions. Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Serum Separator Tubes and Transport Systems on Hormone and Tumor Marker Measurements. Patient Data and refineR for Efficient Monitoring and Verifying Laboratory Reference Intervals: A Practical Approach. Diagnostic and Prognostic Utility of Monocyte Cell Population Data in Emergency Department Patients with Suspected Sepsis. Development and Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Two-Step Model for Automated Serum Quality Assessment in Clinical Laboratories.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1