Thank you for all your responses! I will be doing more research, and discussing the topic with our pathologists. Since our current method does not use any enhancement techniques, and "gel" does, the correlations are poor. There difference is at very least 2-fold. I agree that reproducibility and tech interpretation are two major factors with the tube technique, and I believe that "gel" would help with both of those. What do your physicians use as a "critical" number as far as titers go? I've read that using tube, some physicians consider a titer of 32 as "critical", where this would have to be modified for "gel."
We have not gone "live" with our Ortho Vision testing yet, but I will keep you informed with our decisions.
