Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative evaluation demonstrates 100% typing accuracy for a novel solid-phase blood grouping kit across 1260 clinical samples, highlighting its utility for rapid emergency blood typing.
OBJECTIVES: Rapid and accurate identification of blood groups is the foundation of emergency blood support. We performed a complete assessment of a new solid-phase kit for ABO forward grouping and RhD grouping (ABD Kit, InTec Products, Xiamen, China) on the analytical performance, which was compared with those of traditional methods. METHODS: We analysed 1260 clinical samples using the ABD Kit, including weakly agglutinated samples of A, B and D antigen, and compared the test results with those via Gel card, test tube and slide methods. We also validated the results of typing blood samples containing weak antigens using first-generation gene sequencing. RESULTS: The ABO forward group and RhD group of 1260 samples was determined using ABD Kit, revealing that the inter-batch repeatability rate of the kit was 100%. The results of the kit were compared with those of the gel card method, revealing that the detection accuracy of the kit was also 100%, which was confirmed by comparing the detection of weak antigen samples with the results of first-generation gene sequencing. The accuracy of the test tube agglutination method was 100%. In contrast, the accuracy of the slide agglutination method was low, especially in the detection of weak A blood antigens (agglutination strength 1+), weak B blood antigens (agglutination strength 1+) and weak D blood antigens (agglutination strength 1+ or 2+). CONCLUSIONS: The ABD Kit (InTec Products, Xiamen, China) showed high sensitivity, reproducibility and specificity, indicative of excellent analytical performance. It is a reliable, practical and promising solution for rapid and accurate identification of blood types.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: