Sandy Jo

Found a bb tech locally to take them all!😁

Basically there is a bias with the selected samples. I would not be picking a patient with a SPD (Solid Phase Dependent) antibody to compare with manual tube methods. We pull samples that have already been run on the Echo and repeat them in tube testing. I also include a "disclaimer" of sorts in the SOP by stating that the methods may not compare 100% due to the sensitivity and specificity of each test method. The goal is not to achieve perfect correlation, but to document comparable results given the difference in sensitivities, specificities and general limitations between the methods. As we all know and love - no one method will always detect all clinically significant antibodies!

Basically there is a bias with the selected samples. I would not be picking a patient with a SPD (Solid Phase Dependent) antibody to compare with manual tube methods. We pull samples that have already been run on the Echo and repeat them in tube testing. I also include a "disclaimer" of sorts in the SOP by stating that the methods may not compare 100% due to the sensitivity and specificity of each test method. The goal is not to achieve perfect correlation, but to document comparable results given the difference in sensitivities, specificities and general limitations between the methods. As we all know and love - no one method will always detect all clinically significant antibodies!

Basically there is a bias with the selected samples. I would not be picking a patient with a SPD (Solid Phase Dependent) antibody to compare with manual tube methods. We pull samples that have already been run on the Echo and repeat them in tube testing. I also include a "disclaimer" of sorts in the SOP by stating that the methods may not compare 100% due to the sensitivity and specificity of each test method. The goal is not to achieve perfect correlation, but to document comparable results given the difference in sensitivities, specificities and general limitations between the methods. As we all know and love - no one method will always detect all clinically significant antibodies!

Basically there is a bias with the selected samples. I would not be picking a patient with a SPD (Solid Phase Dependent) antibody to compare with manual tube methods. We pull samples that have already been run on the Echo and repeat them in tube testing. I also include a "disclaimer" of sorts in the SOP by stating that the methods may not compare 100% due to the sensitivity and specificity of each test method. The goal is not to achieve perfect correlation, but to document comparable results given the difference in sensitivities, specificities and general limitations between the methods. As we all know and love - no one method will always detect all clinically significant antibodies!

Basically there is a bias with the selected samples. I would not be picking a patient with a SPD (Solid Phase Dependent) antibody to compare with manual tube methods. We pull samples that have already been run on the Echo and repeat them in tube testing. I also include a "disclaimer" of sorts in the SOP by stating that the methods may not compare 100% due to the sensitivity and specificity of each test method. The goal is not to achieve perfect correlation, but to document comparable results given the difference in sensitivities, specificities and general limitations between the methods. As we all know and love - no one method will always detect all clinically significant antibodies!

For our Helmer Cellwasher I obtained a letter from the company verifying that the RelyOn Disinfectant tabs we use for the Immucor Galileo Echo is acceptable for the cellwaher as well. That also allows use to use the tabs up before they expire. Win-win!

We result the positive antibody screen on the Echo and then perform an antibody panel on the Echo. We add an IAT using manual tube method. If all cells are positive in Capture, with negative results in tubes, we result it as a Solid Phase Dependent antibody and use full coombs crossmatch.
 
I have concerns with techs calling results "junk." I have seen what looks like a WAA show up in the more sensitive methods, like the Echo, and later have found a specific alloantibody. IMO we should be performing a full coombs crossmatch (just in case) whenever a method gives positive results for an antibody screen, not just ignoring the results. Obviously we all know with increased sensitivity there is decreased specificity. But I would not want to be responsible for treating something as insignificant and having a delayed hemolytic reaction come back to bite us!