Suppr超能文献

血小板血清学和人类血小板抗原基因分型的外部质量评估:十年回顾

External quality assessment of platelet serology and human platelet antigen genotyping: a 10-year review.

作者信息

Porcelijn Leendert, van Beers Wil, Gratama Jan W, van't Veer Mars, De Smet Annie, Sintnicolaas Kees

机构信息

Sanquin-AMC Landsteiner Laboratory, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Transfusion. 2008 Aug;48(8):1699-706. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01748.x. Epub 2008 May 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In this review, the results of an external quality assessment (EQA) over 10 years of platelet (PLT) serology and of human platelet antigen (HPA) polymorphisms genotyping are shown. The detection and identification of PLT antibodies and the distinction between PLT-specific antibodies and HLA Class I antibodies are evaluated.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Each year, serum samples from five patients and four donor blood samples for DNA typing were distributed. Laboratories could participate as a screening laboratory (SL; n = 7) or as an identification laboratory (IL; n = 8).

RESULTS

SLs scored 57 to 100 percent correct positive and 91 to 100 percent correct negative results in the detection of PLT-specific antibodies. SLs only using a PLT immunofluorescence test (PIFT) scored less well than those using a PLT glycoprotein-based antibody detection method. ILs scored 70 to 100 percent correct positive and 87 to 100 percent correct negative results for, respectively, the detection and identification of PLT-specific antibodies. Both the specificity and the sensitivity for the detection and identification of PLT-specific antibodies were not as good in ILs using solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay methods as in those using the monoclonal antibody immobilization of PLT antigens (MAIPA) assay. For HPA-1, -2, -3, and -5 genotyping, incorrect results were observed only twice in 280 genotyping assays.

CONCLUSION

The data underscore the necessity of using the most accurate methods with a high level of knowledge, experience, and technical training. For screening purposes, it is not sufficient to use only the PIFT, whereas for identification of PLT-specific antibodies, the MAIPA assay is the superior assay.

摘要

背景

在本综述中,展示了10年血小板(PLT)血清学外部质量评估(EQA)以及人类血小板抗原(HPA)多态性基因分型的结果。对PLT抗体的检测与鉴定以及PLT特异性抗体与HLA I类抗体之间的区分进行了评估。

研究设计与方法

每年分发来自5名患者的血清样本和4份用于DNA分型的供者血液样本。实验室可作为筛查实验室(SL;n = 7)或鉴定实验室(IL;n = 8)参与。

结果

在检测PLT特异性抗体方面,SL的正确阳性结果得分在57%至100%之间,正确阴性结果得分在91%至100%之间。仅使用血小板免疫荧光试验(PIFT)的SL得分低于使用基于血小板糖蛋白的抗体检测方法的SL。IL在检测和鉴定PLT特异性抗体方面,正确阳性结果得分分别在70%至100%之间,正确阴性结果得分在87%至100%之间。在使用固相酶联免疫吸附测定方法的IL中,检测和鉴定PLT特异性抗体的特异性和敏感性不如使用血小板抗原单克隆抗体固定法(MAIPA)的IL。对于HPA-1、-2、-3和-5基因分型,在280次基因分型检测中仅观察到两次错误结果。

结论

数据强调了使用具有高水平知识、经验和技术培训的最准确方法的必要性。用于筛查目的时,仅使用PIFT是不够的,而对于鉴定PLT特异性抗体,MAIPA检测是更优的检测方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验