Comparison of tube and gel techniques for antibody identification

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Immunohematology

American National Red Cross

Subject: Medical Laboratory Technology

GET ALERTS SUBSCRIBE

ISSN: 0894-203X
eISSN: 1930-3955

DESCRIPTION

15
Reader(s)
17
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Volume 30 (2014)
Volume 29 (2013)
Volume 28 (2012)
Volume 27 (2011)
Volume 26 (2010)
Volume 25 (2009)
Volume 24 (2008)
Volume 23 (2007)
Volume 22 (2006)
Volume 21 (2005)
Volume 20 (2004)
Volume 19 (2003)
Volume 18 (2002)
Volume 17 (2001)
Volume 16 (2000)
Volume 15 (1999)
Volume 14 (1998)
Volume 13 (1997)
Volume 12 (1996)
Volume 11 (1995)
Volume 10 (1994)
Volume 9 (1993)
Volume 8 (1992)
Volume 7 (1991)
Volume 6 (1990)
Volume 5 (1989)
Volume 4 (1988)
Volume 3 (1987)
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 4 (December 2000) > List of articles

Comparison of tube and gel techniques for antibody identification

Marcia Cristina Zago Novaretti / Eduardo Jens Silveira / Edio da Costa Filho / Pedro Enrique Dorlhiac- Llacer / Dalton de Alencar Fischer Chamone

Keywords : gel test, antibody detection, PEG-IAT, pretransfusion testing

Citation Information : Immunohematology. Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 138-141, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-595

License : (Transfer of Copyright)

Published Online: 18-October-2020

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

There are several methods for antibody detection and each technique has advantages and limitations. We compared the performance of the tube (polyethylene glycol–indirect antiglobulin test [PEG-IAT]) and gel test technique for antibody identification. From January to May 1999, we performed antibody screening tests by gel and tube techniques on 10,123 random blood samples submitted to our reference laboratory. Six hundred and twentyeight (6.2%) reactive samples were tested for antibody specificity by both methods. One hundred and ninety-six were reactive only by gel: 25 anti-D, 33 anti-C, 76 anti-E, 13 anti-c, 5 anti-e, 18 anti-K, 7 anti-Jka, 2 anti-Dia, 3 anti-S, 8 combination Rh antibodies (1 with antiK), and 6 other antibody specificities. Two samples were reactive only by PEG-IAT: 1 anti-K and 1 anti-Dia. Four hundred and thirty were positive by the two methods: 156 anti-D, 9 anti-C, 68 anti-E, 15 anti-c, 6 anti-e, 61 anti-K, 12 anti-Jka, 17 anti-Dia, 5 anti-S, 73 combination Rh antibodies (2 with anti-K), and 8 other antibody specificities. Based on this study, the gel test is more sensitive (p <.01) than the tube test for identifying potentially clinically significant antibodies.

You don't have 'Full Text' access of this article.

Purchase Article Subscribe Journal Share