Yes. However, its findings have been superseded by more definitive tests done by scientists who are experts in the field of blood and hemoglobin. The Italians used simplistic forensic presumptive testing that is designed for blood that is fairly newly deposited and more suited to convicting a murderer than archaeological studies. They simply do not work for old, denatured blood that has been fractionated into meth-hemoglobins. Those researches have been peer-reviewed, published, and duplicated. I have already, on another thread, supplied you with the links on the articles... which you obviously ignore in favor of much older work, now disproved. I will not post those links to you again. It is obviously a waste of time.
This actually the opposite of the truth. The Italian team actually used highly sensitive tests specifically for blood. They were actually MORE sensitive for old blood because it is more concentrated.
Adler et al didn't use tests specific for blood, but for components of blood. Nickell et al have shown that these tests show positives for the kind of paint Rogers admitted were on the shroud.