MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234957596 · doi:10.5858/133.12.1910

Inaccurate Doses of Rh Immune Globulin After Rh-Incompatible Fetomaternal Hemorrhage—Survey of Laboratory Practice

2009· letter· en· W4234957596 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Lafferty, Anne Raby, Michael Keeney, Gregory J. Flynn, Mark Crowther

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreCalgary Laboratory ServicesHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDosingObstetricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ontario Quality Management Program—Laboratory Services, External Quality Assessment division published similar findings1 to Dr Ramsey's recent article.2 We found that the Rosette and acid elution techniques were effective at detecting a fetomaternal hemorrhage (FMH) requiring additional units of Rh immune globulin (RhIg; sensitivity 1.0 and 0.96, specificity 0.75 and 0.92, respectively). However, acid elution lacked adequate precision and accuracy to reliably determine the volume of FMH present. In 8 external quality assessment (proficiency testing) surveys with an FMH present, the percentage of error of the calculated mean from the FMH was 20% or greater in all but 1 of the surveys and ranged as high as 70%. Coefficients of variation ranged from 39.5% to 71.8%. Of 278 proficiency challenges in which the FMH volume would require additional RhIg, 54 laboratories (19.4%) would have recommended inadequate RhIg dosage. Following the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) strategy of administering an additional dose of RhIg over that required for the volume of FMH detected eliminated these errors. As a result, we recommended that all Ontario laboratories follow the AABB recommendations for RhIg dosing to overcome the limitations of this technique.In our view, improving the effectiveness of RhIg dosing would require 2 things: (1) a more accurate calculation of maternal blood volume, such as Dr Ramsey's RhIg Dose Calculator2; and (2) replacement of acid elution FMH quantitation with flow cytometry in all cases in which additional Rh immune globulin doses are indicated by initial Rosette or acid elution test results. The latter could be accomplished in 2 ways: (1) have laboratories establish flow cytometry referral procedures, with results to be received within 72 hours, for all cases where the Rosette or acid elution techniques indicate additional doses of RhIg are required; and (2) encourage blood cell analyzer manufacturers to add FMH detection methods to the flow cytometry components of their complete blood cell count analyzers, eliminating the need for initial Rosette or acid elution testing and making an effective FMH detection and quantitation method widely available to most laboratories in the industrialized world where obstetric services are offered. The published findings of a large proficiency testing program, such as the College of American Pathologists, further emphasizes the potential effect of this latter option in improving laboratory and transfusion effectiveness and eliminating the risk of inadequate RhIg prophylaxis as a cause of failed Rh (D) alloimmunization.The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207