We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
VALIDATION STUDIES
Validation of automated blood cell counter for the determination of polymorphonuclear cell count in the ascitic fluid of cirrhotic patients with or without spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.
American Journal of Gastroenterology 2003 August
OBJECTIVES: Polymorphonuclear (PMN) cell count in ascitic fluid is the most useful test for the diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). We evaluated the validity of an automated blood cell counter for the PMN determination in ascitic fluid by comparing it with the traditional hematologic method with a light microscope in a manual counting chamber.
METHODS: A total of 130 ascitic fluid samples were collected from 74 consecutive cirrhotics. The agreement between the two techniques was assessed according to Bland and Altman's method. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the automated blood cell counter were calculated by considering the diagnosis of SBP as a PMN count > or = 250 cells/mm(3), determined by the manual method as the "gold standard."
RESULTS: The mean PMN counts assessed by the manual method and the automated blood cell counter were 124 +/- 301 cells/mm(3) and 130 +/- 339 cells/mm(3), respectively (p = 0.89, ns). The mean +/- SD of the difference between manual and automated measurements was 6 +/- 61 cells/mm(3), whereas the limits of agreement were +127 cells/mm(3) (95% CI = +108 to +147) and -115 cells/mm(3) (95%CI = -96 to -135). SBP was diagnosed in 11 patients. All but one were correctly identified with the automated blood cell counter, with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 100%; positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 99.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The manual method and the automated blood cell counter have a good agreement in the PMN determination in ascitic fluid, and the automated blood cell counter is a reliable tool for rapid diagnosis of SBP.
METHODS: A total of 130 ascitic fluid samples were collected from 74 consecutive cirrhotics. The agreement between the two techniques was assessed according to Bland and Altman's method. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the automated blood cell counter were calculated by considering the diagnosis of SBP as a PMN count > or = 250 cells/mm(3), determined by the manual method as the "gold standard."
RESULTS: The mean PMN counts assessed by the manual method and the automated blood cell counter were 124 +/- 301 cells/mm(3) and 130 +/- 339 cells/mm(3), respectively (p = 0.89, ns). The mean +/- SD of the difference between manual and automated measurements was 6 +/- 61 cells/mm(3), whereas the limits of agreement were +127 cells/mm(3) (95% CI = +108 to +147) and -115 cells/mm(3) (95%CI = -96 to -135). SBP was diagnosed in 11 patients. All but one were correctly identified with the automated blood cell counter, with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 100%; positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 99.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The manual method and the automated blood cell counter have a good agreement in the PMN determination in ascitic fluid, and the automated blood cell counter is a reliable tool for rapid diagnosis of SBP.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app