We have located links that may give you full text access.
Validation of the International Consensus Group Criteria for Slide Review Following Automated Complete Blood Count at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia.
BACKGROUND: The international consensus group suggested criteria for action following automated complete blood count and white blood cell differential analysis. These criteria were set based on data from laboratories of developed countries. It is highly important to validate the criteria in developing countries where infectious diseases are still rampant that can affect blood cell count and morphology. Thus, this study aimed to validate the consensus group criteria for slide review at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia from November 1, 2020 to February 30, 2021.
METHODS: The study comprised a total of 1685 patient samples from the daily laboratory workload of CBC analysis. The samples were collected in K2-EDTA tubes (Becton Dickinson) and analyzed using Coulter DxH 800 and Sysmex XT-1880 hematology analyzers. A slide review was done on two Wright-stained slides for each sample. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 20 software.
RESULTS: There were 39.8% positive findings, the majority of which were related to red blood cells. The false negative and false positive rates for Sysmex and Coulter analyzer were 2.4% vs 4.8%; and 4.6% vs 4.7%, respectively. The false negative rate was unacceptably higher when we used physicians' triggered slide review, which was 17.3% and 17.9% for Sysmex and Coulter analyzers, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Generally, the consensus group rules are suitable to use in our setting. However, we might still need to modify the rules, particularly to reduce the review rates. It is also necessary to confirm the rules with case mixes proportionally derived from the source population.
METHODS: The study comprised a total of 1685 patient samples from the daily laboratory workload of CBC analysis. The samples were collected in K2-EDTA tubes (Becton Dickinson) and analyzed using Coulter DxH 800 and Sysmex XT-1880 hematology analyzers. A slide review was done on two Wright-stained slides for each sample. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 20 software.
RESULTS: There were 39.8% positive findings, the majority of which were related to red blood cells. The false negative and false positive rates for Sysmex and Coulter analyzer were 2.4% vs 4.8%; and 4.6% vs 4.7%, respectively. The false negative rate was unacceptably higher when we used physicians' triggered slide review, which was 17.3% and 17.9% for Sysmex and Coulter analyzers, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Generally, the consensus group rules are suitable to use in our setting. However, we might still need to modify the rules, particularly to reduce the review rates. It is also necessary to confirm the rules with case mixes proportionally derived from the source population.
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