Jump to content

Featured Replies

comment_81486
On 8/15/2017 at 8:08 AM, SarahE said:

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.  :)

Hi, Sarah. What did you end up deciding? We have a Vision but don’t currently run titers on it. We use manual gel, and haven’t had any problems with proficiency testing.

  • Replies 25
  • Views 8.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • On p. 563 of AABB Tech Manual 18th edition, it only mentions that titer methods other than "saline AHG 60 minute incubation" in tube may result in higher titers and "should be validated with clinical

  • The AABB Technical Manual states that antibody titers should not be performed using gel technology, so we revised our procedure to go back to tube method.  

  • Malcolm Needs
    Malcolm Needs

    IN the UK, the NHSBT (at least) has been performing titrations of all antibodies, of all specificities, in gel, after an extensive amount of work performed by my friend Gordon Burgess showed that ther

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.