These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28316439)

  • 1. First Indian study to establish safety of immediate-spin crossmatch for red blood cell transfusion in antibody screen-negative recipients.
    Tiwari AK; Aggarwal G; Dara RC; Arora D; Gupta GK; Raina V
    Asian J Transfus Sci; 2017; 11(1):40-44. PubMed ID: 28316439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A prospective study to determine the safety of omitting the antiglobulin crossmatch from pretransfusion testing.
    Heddle NM; O'Hoski P; Singer J; McBride JA; Ali MA; Kelton JG
    Br J Haematol; 1992 Aug; 81(4):579-84. PubMed ID: 1390245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Advantages of type and screen policy: Perspective from a developing country!
    Aggarwal G; Tiwari AK; Arora D; Dara RC; Acharya DP; Bhardwaj G; Sharma J
    Asian J Transfus Sci; 2018; 12(1):42-45. PubMed ID: 29563674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A prospective, observational study for optimization of antibody screening in pretransfusion compatibility testing.
    Pandey P; Setya D; Srivastava R; Singh MK
    Immunohematology; 2020 Jan; 36(1):19-28. PubMed ID: 32324041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A multicenter prospective observational study on the use of type and screen method versus conventional type and crossmatch policy for pre-transfusion testing in the Indian population.
    Mathur A; Jindal A; Tiwari AK; Bhuyan D; Jagannathan L; Sawant RB; Basu S; Reddy M; Datta SS
    Immunohematology; 2022 Sep; 38(3):100-105. PubMed ID: 36190198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Outcome of type and screen versus crossmatch in cardiovascular surgery patients: A comparative study.
    Pokhrel A; Jain A; Marwaha N; Singh RS
    Asian J Transfus Sci; 2022; 16(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 36199399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Type and screen method and Coombs crossmatch method for pretransfusion testing: A prospective comparative study in a tertiary care hospital in Delhi.
    Anu KD; Pahuja S; Sharma G
    Asian J Transfus Sci; 2022; 16(1):83-88. PubMed ID: 36199420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The risk of an overt hemolytic transfusion reaction following the use of an immediate spin crossmatch.
    Shulman IA
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1990 Apr; 114(4):412-4. PubMed ID: 2322101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A hemolytic reaction implicating Sda antibody missed by immediate spin crossmatch.
    Reznicek MJ; Cordle DG; Strauss RG
    Vox Sang; 1992; 62(3):173-5. PubMed ID: 1609519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Electronic verification of donor-recipient compatibility: the computer crossmatch.
    Butch SH; Judd WJ; Steiner EA; Stoe M; Oberman HA
    Transfusion; 1994 Feb; 34(2):105-9. PubMed ID: 8310478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Pretransfusion testing without serologic crossmatch: approaches to ensure patient safety.
    Kuriyan M; Fox E
    Vox Sang; 2000; 78(2):113-8. PubMed ID: 10765147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Type and screen policy in the blood bank: Is AHG cross-match still required? A study at a multispecialty corporate hospital in India.
    Pathak S; Chandrashekhar M; Wankhede GR
    Asian J Transfus Sci; 2011 Jul; 5(2):153-6. PubMed ID: 21897595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Anti-i causing acute hemolysis following a negative immediate-spin crossmatch.
    Judd WJ; Steiner EA; Abruzzo LV; Davenport RD; Oberman HA; Pehta JC; Nance SJ
    Transfusion; 1992; 32(6):572-5. PubMed ID: 1502712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Acute extravascular hemolytic transfusion reaction due to anti-Kpa antibody missed by electronic crossmatch.
    Padmore R; Berardi P; Erickson K; Desjardins D; Giulivi A; Tokessy M; Neurath D; Saidenberg E
    Transfus Apher Sci; 2014 Oct; 51(2):168-71. PubMed ID: 25175412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Positive pretransplant crossmatches predict early graft loss in liver allograft recipients.
    Katz SM; Kimball PM; Ozaki C; Monsour H; Clark J; Cavazos D; Kahan BD; Wood RP; Kerman RH
    Transplantation; 1994 Feb; 57(4):616-20. PubMed ID: 8116049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Safety and cost-containment data that advocate abbreviated pretransfusion testing.
    Cordle DG; Strauss RG; Snyder EL; Floss AM
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1990 Oct; 94(4):428-31. PubMed ID: 2220670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Frequency of delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions following antibody screening and immediate-spin crossmatching.
    Pinkerton PH; Coovadia AS; Goldstein J
    Transfusion; 1992; 32(9):814-7. PubMed ID: 1471244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Acute Hemolytic Transfusion Reaction Caused by a Red Cell Antibody That Was Missed by Pretransfusion Testing Using Tube Method.
    Shmookler A; Hamad D; Scrape S; Chen J
    Lab Med; 2017 Aug; 48(3):258-261. PubMed ID: 28934518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of a manual hexadimethrine bromide-antiglobulin test with saline- and albumin-antiglobulin tests for pretransfusion testing.
    Mintz PD; Anderson G
    Transfusion; 1987; 27(2):134-7. PubMed ID: 3824470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.