Christopher Elliott, Stephanie Kelham, Liu Zhang, Stacy Grieve, Tommy Lan, Hoora Moradian, Cristina Coll-Ortega, David Gómez-Ulloa
{"title":"Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of concordance and accuracy of pretransfusion immunohematology routine tests.","authors":"Christopher Elliott, Stephanie Kelham, Liu Zhang, Stacy Grieve, Tommy Lan, Hoora Moradian, Cristina Coll-Ortega, David Gómez-Ulloa","doi":"10.1111/tme.70010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess the concordance and comparative accuracy of commercially available immunohematology (IH) tests for pretransfusion testing.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Pretransfusion tests are intended to ensure donor blood is matched with a compatible recipient. Automated testing has become the mainstay since the commercialisation of IH analysers, because of their reduced risk of human error and increased efficiency.</p><p><strong>Methods/materials: </strong>A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify studies evaluating the concordance and sensitivity/specificity of IH tests for ABO/RhD typing, antibody screening, or antibody identification. Pairwise meta-analysis of concordance and sensitivity/specificity of IH tests was conducted when feasible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SLR identified 48 publications, of which 30 were included for meta-analysis. ID/IH gel (Bio-Rad), DG gel (Grifols), MTS/BioVue gel (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics), and Capture R (Immucor/Werfen) all had almost 100% pooled concordance with each other in ABO/RhD typing and antibody screening. Antibody identification results varied across studies, and pooled concordance rates were lower: 97.53% for DG gel versus ID/IH gel, 85.26% for ID/IH gel vs. MTS/BioVue gel, 85.54% for DG gel versus MTS/BioVue gel, and 71.19% for Capture R versus MTS/BioVue gel. For antibody screening, ID/IH gel, DG gel, and MTS/BioVue gel had pooled sensitivities of 94.23%, 96.31%, and 97.27%, respectively, with a pooled specificity of ~100% for all three tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All tests had good concordance in ABO/RhD typing and antibody screening, and lower pooled concordance rates for antibody identification. For antibody screening, 95% pooled sensitivity and ~100% specificity were estimated for DG gel, MTS/BioVue gel, and ID/IH gel.</p>","PeriodicalId":23306,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"445-457"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12499635/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.70010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the concordance and comparative accuracy of commercially available immunohematology (IH) tests for pretransfusion testing.
Background: Pretransfusion tests are intended to ensure donor blood is matched with a compatible recipient. Automated testing has become the mainstay since the commercialisation of IH analysers, because of their reduced risk of human error and increased efficiency.
Methods/materials: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify studies evaluating the concordance and sensitivity/specificity of IH tests for ABO/RhD typing, antibody screening, or antibody identification. Pairwise meta-analysis of concordance and sensitivity/specificity of IH tests was conducted when feasible.
Results: The SLR identified 48 publications, of which 30 were included for meta-analysis. ID/IH gel (Bio-Rad), DG gel (Grifols), MTS/BioVue gel (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics), and Capture R (Immucor/Werfen) all had almost 100% pooled concordance with each other in ABO/RhD typing and antibody screening. Antibody identification results varied across studies, and pooled concordance rates were lower: 97.53% for DG gel versus ID/IH gel, 85.26% for ID/IH gel vs. MTS/BioVue gel, 85.54% for DG gel versus MTS/BioVue gel, and 71.19% for Capture R versus MTS/BioVue gel. For antibody screening, ID/IH gel, DG gel, and MTS/BioVue gel had pooled sensitivities of 94.23%, 96.31%, and 97.27%, respectively, with a pooled specificity of ~100% for all three tests.
Conclusion: All tests had good concordance in ABO/RhD typing and antibody screening, and lower pooled concordance rates for antibody identification. For antibody screening, 95% pooled sensitivity and ~100% specificity were estimated for DG gel, MTS/BioVue gel, and ID/IH gel.
期刊介绍：
Transfusion Medicine publishes articles on transfusion medicine in its widest context, including blood transfusion practice (blood procurement, pharmaceutical, clinical, scientific, computing and documentary aspects), immunohaematology, immunogenetics, histocompatibility, medico-legal applications, and related molecular biology and biotechnology.
In addition to original articles, which may include brief communications and case reports, the journal contains a regular educational section (based on invited reviews and state-of-the-art reports), technical section (including quality assurance and current practice guidelines), leading articles, letters to the editor, occasional historical articles and signed book reviews. Some lectures from Society meetings that are likely to be of general interest to readers of the Journal may be published at the discretion of the Editor and subject to the availability of space in the Journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
