English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The cross-matching of blood can be performed by various methods like saline tube method and gel card technique. Saline tube method is most commonly used in blood banks, whereas the latest method used is Gel card technique for cross-matching. Both techniques have their advantages and disadvantages. The main aim of this study was the comparison of gel card and conventional tube test for sensitivity and speci icity, time and ef icacy. This prospective study was done at the Department of Blood Transfusion, BPS GMC Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat, Haryana. A total of 500 samples collected at the Department of Blood Transfusion, were cross-matched using conventional tube method (spin tube method) with and without using AHG and Gel card Method. 497 (99.4%) samples were compatible, and 3 (0.6%) samples were incompatible with Gel card method, but by test tube method 492 (98.4%) samples were consistent, and 05(1.6%) were false positive (FP). Incompatibility of those 05 samples (FP) disappeared after incubation with AHG reagent at 37◦C saline tubemethod. The sensitivity and speci icity of both gel cardmethod and saline tubemethodwith AHGmethods is 100%whereas the speci icity of saline tube method without AHG is 98.9%. The average time taken by Gel card method was20-30minutes for a single compatibility testwhereas in conventional spin tubemethodwith the use of AHG (IAT) average time required was 90minutes and without AHG it was 45-60minutes. The sensitivity and speci icity of the spin tube method and the gel card method are comparable to each other. But the gel card method is easy to perform, rapid, reliable procedure and results can be recorded. In contrast, spin saline tube method is more time consuming, and results cannot be preserved. Thus gel card technique can be preferred over the spin tube method.

Comparison between conventional tube method and gel card technique for blood crossmatching: A study in a tertiary care center of north India