A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Patient factors associated with unidentified reactivity in solid-phase and polyethylene glycol antibody detection methods. | LitMetric

Background: Several publications have reported an increase in nonspecific reactions when automated technologies such as solid phase are used for the detection of red blood cell alloantibodies. However, there is little known about patient-specific factors associated with these reactions and the clinical importance of these nonspecific reactions.

Study Design And Methods: We performed a 6-year retrospective review of our blood bank records and all newly reported unidentified (UID) reactivity using a test tube polyethylene glycol (t-PEG) and solid-phase method for the detection and identification of alloantibodies was recorded. Patient factors, such as underlying diagnosis, age, sex, ABO, Rh type, ethnicity, and subsequent antibody formation were recorded in each case.

Results: We determined that there was a significant increase in new UID reactions recorded in solid phase (20 per 10,000 tests) when compared to the t-PEG (1.8 per 10,000 tests) method for the detection of antibodies (p ≤ 0.0001). Solid-phase UID reactions were significantly associated with female sex (p = 0.04) and certain diagnoses, such as chronic or autoimmune disease, cancer, pregnancy, surgery, and trauma. Approximately 16% of patients developed a new auto- or alloantibody subsequent to their detected UID using solid phase.

Conclusions: When solid phase is used for antibody identification, there is greater sensitivity toward nonspecific reactivity when compared to the t-PEG method. Patient sex and underlying diagnosis may explain the increased incidence of new UID reactivity in the solid-phase technology. Finally, UID reactivity should not be overlooked due to a notable percentage of subsequent clinically significant antibodies after UID detection.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.14079DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

solid phase
12
uid reactivity
12
patient factors
8
factors associated
8
reactivity solid-phase
8
polyethylene glycol
8
method detection
8
underlying diagnosis
8
uid reactions
8
10000 tests
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!