[Current status and proposal of a guideline for manual slide review of automated complete blood cell count and white blood cell differential].

Hee-Yeon Woo, Sang-Yong Shin, Hyosoon Park, Young Jae Kim, Hee-Jin Kim, Young Kyung Lee, Seok-Lae Chae, Yoon Hwan Chang, Jong Rak Choi, Kyungja Han, Sung Ran Cho, Kye Chul Kwon
{"title":"[Current status and proposal of a guideline for manual slide review of automated complete blood cell count and white blood cell differential].","authors":"Hee-Yeon Woo,&nbsp;Sang-Yong Shin,&nbsp;Hyosoon Park,&nbsp;Young Jae Kim,&nbsp;Hee-Jin Kim,&nbsp;Young Kyung Lee,&nbsp;Seok-Lae Chae,&nbsp;Yoon Hwan Chang,&nbsp;Jong Rak Choi,&nbsp;Kyungja Han,&nbsp;Sung Ran Cho,&nbsp;Kye Chul Kwon","doi":"10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.6.559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Manual slide review (MSR) is usually triggered by the results of automated hematology analyzers, but each laboratory has different criteria for MSR. This study was carried out to investigate the current status of MSR criteria of automated complete blood cell count (CBC) and white blood cell (WBC) differential results and to propose a basic guideline for MSR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Total 111 laboratories were surveyed regarding MSR using questionnaires. The questionnaire asked: kinds of automated hematology analyzers used and the presence of criteria triggering MSR in seven categories: 1) CBC results, 2) 5 differential WBC counts, 3) 3 differential WBC counts, 4) automated reticulocyte counts, 5) delta check, 6) instrument flags (or messages), 7) clinical information (wards or diseases). Based on the survey results, we determined basic and extended criteria for MSR. With these criteria, we consulted nine hematology experts to get a consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 111 laboratories had their own MSR criteria. Among 111 laboratories, 98 (88.3%) used more than three criteria for MSR including CBC results and 5-part WBC differential count results and 95 (85.6%) had criteria of flags triggering MSR. For MSR criteria with numeric values, the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of upper and lower threshold values were obtained. The basic guideline for MSR was made.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We proposed a basic guideline for MSR. This guideline would be helpful to hematology laboratories for their daily operation and providing more rapid and accurate CBC and WBC differential results.</p>","PeriodicalId":17890,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine","volume":"30 6","pages":"559-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.6.559","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Manual slide review (MSR) is usually triggered by the results of automated hematology analyzers, but each laboratory has different criteria for MSR. This study was carried out to investigate the current status of MSR criteria of automated complete blood cell count (CBC) and white blood cell (WBC) differential results and to propose a basic guideline for MSR.

Methods: Total 111 laboratories were surveyed regarding MSR using questionnaires. The questionnaire asked: kinds of automated hematology analyzers used and the presence of criteria triggering MSR in seven categories: 1) CBC results, 2) 5 differential WBC counts, 3) 3 differential WBC counts, 4) automated reticulocyte counts, 5) delta check, 6) instrument flags (or messages), 7) clinical information (wards or diseases). Based on the survey results, we determined basic and extended criteria for MSR. With these criteria, we consulted nine hematology experts to get a consensus.

Results: All 111 laboratories had their own MSR criteria. Among 111 laboratories, 98 (88.3%) used more than three criteria for MSR including CBC results and 5-part WBC differential count results and 95 (85.6%) had criteria of flags triggering MSR. For MSR criteria with numeric values, the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of upper and lower threshold values were obtained. The basic guideline for MSR was made.

Conclusions: We proposed a basic guideline for MSR. This guideline would be helpful to hematology laboratories for their daily operation and providing more rapid and accurate CBC and WBC differential results.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[全自动全血细胞计数和白细胞差异手工切片检查指南的现状和建议]。
背景:手动载玻片检查(MSR)通常由自动血液学分析仪的结果触发,但每个实验室对MSR有不同的标准。本研究旨在调查自动全血细胞计数(CBC)和白细胞(WBC)差异结果的MSR标准的现状,并提出MSR的基本指南。方法:采用问卷调查的方式对111家实验室进行MSR调查。问卷询问:所使用的自动化血液学分析仪的种类和触发MSR的标准的存在,分为七个类别:1)CBC结果,2)5个WBC差异计数,3)3个WBC差异计数,4)自动网织网细胞计数,5)三角检查,6)仪器标志(或消息),7)临床信息(病房或疾病)。根据调查结果,我们确定了MSR的基本标准和扩展标准。根据这些标准,我们咨询了九位血液学专家,以获得共识。结果:111个实验室均有各自的MSR标准。111个实验室中,98个(88.3%)使用CBC结果和5份WBC差异计数结果等3项以上的MSR标准,95个(85.6%)有标志触发MSR的标准。对于具有数值的MSR标准,获得上限和下限阈值的第10、第50和第90百分位。提出了MSR的基本准则。结论:我们提出了MSR的基本准则。该指南有助于血液学实验室的日常操作,并提供更快速准确的CBC和WBC鉴别结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine
Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine 医学-医学实验技术
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Green urine – understanding its importance Use of tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening of 6 lysosomal storage disorders in a Korean population. Prevalence of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance and its association with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase and AmpC beta-lactamase in Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrobial resistance determinants in imipenem-nonsusceptible Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex isolated in Daejeon, Korea. Serial interferon-gamma release assays for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection in patients treated with immunosuppressive agents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1