正常化还是不正常化?稀释罗素蝰蛇毒时间测试。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 PATHOLOGY American journal of clinical pathology Pub Date : 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1093/ajcp/aqae004
Yong Zhang, Michael Creer, Olajumoke O Oladipo
{"title":"正常化还是不正常化?稀释罗素蝰蛇毒时间测试。","authors":"Yong Zhang, Michael Creer, Olajumoke O Oladipo","doi":"10.1093/ajcp/aqae004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a comparison between the nonnormalized dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) screen/confirm ratio (SCR) in patient plasma and the normalized SCR obtained using reference pooled plasma. The aim was to assess the impact of normalization on the lupus anticoagulant (LA) status in our patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In our retrospective analysis, we included a total of 464 patients who underwent dRVVT testing. For those with positive screens, mixing studies were performed, followed by confirmatory testing. Additionally, the dRVVT of reference pooled plasma was measured. A positive conventional (nonnormalized) or normalized SCR was defined as an SCR greater than or equal to 1.2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 5.6% (26) of the 464 samples tested were confirmed positive for LA by both methods, out of which 12 had a clinical history of thrombosis. Although a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .0096) was found, the magnitude of absolute mean SCR differences (bias) was 0.04 (2.51%). There was 100% concordance of testing results between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The lupus anticoagulant status by the dRVVT assay was not changed based on normalization. Normalization was of no clinical benefit in our patient population; therefore, there was no need for the extra calculation step. Normalization may be useful for intermethod and interlaboratory studies and not for within-method LA detection.</p>","PeriodicalId":7506,"journal":{"name":"American journal of clinical pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To normalize or not?: Dilute Russell viper venom time testing.\",\"authors\":\"Yong Zhang, Michael Creer, Olajumoke O Oladipo\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajcp/aqae004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a comparison between the nonnormalized dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) screen/confirm ratio (SCR) in patient plasma and the normalized SCR obtained using reference pooled plasma. The aim was to assess the impact of normalization on the lupus anticoagulant (LA) status in our patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In our retrospective analysis, we included a total of 464 patients who underwent dRVVT testing. For those with positive screens, mixing studies were performed, followed by confirmatory testing. Additionally, the dRVVT of reference pooled plasma was measured. A positive conventional (nonnormalized) or normalized SCR was defined as an SCR greater than or equal to 1.2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 5.6% (26) of the 464 samples tested were confirmed positive for LA by both methods, out of which 12 had a clinical history of thrombosis. Although a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .0096) was found, the magnitude of absolute mean SCR differences (bias) was 0.04 (2.51%). There was 100% concordance of testing results between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The lupus anticoagulant status by the dRVVT assay was not changed based on normalization. Normalization was of no clinical benefit in our patient population; therefore, there was no need for the extra calculation step. Normalization may be useful for intermethod and interlaboratory studies and not for within-method LA detection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of clinical pathology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of clinical pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae004\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of clinical pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的我们比较了患者血浆中未归一化的稀释罗素蝰蛇毒时间(dRVVT)筛查/确认比值(SCR)和使用参考集合血浆获得的归一化SCR。目的是评估正常化对狼疮抗凝物(LA)状态的影响:在回顾性分析中,我们共纳入了 464 名接受 dRVVT 检测的患者。对筛查结果呈阳性的患者进行了混合研究,然后进行了确证测试。此外,我们还测量了参考集合血浆的 dRVVT。常规(非规范化)或规范化 SCR 阳性的定义是 SCR 大于或等于 1.2:两种方法共检测了 464 份样本中的 5.6%(26 份),证实 LA 阳性,其中 12 份样本有血栓形成的临床病史。虽然两组之间的差异有统计学意义(P = .0096),但 SCR 绝对平均差异(偏差)为 0.04(2.51%)。两组检测结果的一致性为100%:通过 dRVVT 检测得出的狼疮抗凝状态不会因正常化而改变。正常化对我们的患者群体没有临床益处;因此,没有必要进行额外的计算步骤。归一化可能适用于方法间和实验室间的研究,但不适用于方法内的 LA 检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
To normalize or not?: Dilute Russell viper venom time testing.

Objectives: We conducted a comparison between the nonnormalized dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) screen/confirm ratio (SCR) in patient plasma and the normalized SCR obtained using reference pooled plasma. The aim was to assess the impact of normalization on the lupus anticoagulant (LA) status in our patient population.

Methods: In our retrospective analysis, we included a total of 464 patients who underwent dRVVT testing. For those with positive screens, mixing studies were performed, followed by confirmatory testing. Additionally, the dRVVT of reference pooled plasma was measured. A positive conventional (nonnormalized) or normalized SCR was defined as an SCR greater than or equal to 1.2.

Results: In total, 5.6% (26) of the 464 samples tested were confirmed positive for LA by both methods, out of which 12 had a clinical history of thrombosis. Although a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .0096) was found, the magnitude of absolute mean SCR differences (bias) was 0.04 (2.51%). There was 100% concordance of testing results between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: The lupus anticoagulant status by the dRVVT assay was not changed based on normalization. Normalization was of no clinical benefit in our patient population; therefore, there was no need for the extra calculation step. Normalization may be useful for intermethod and interlaboratory studies and not for within-method LA detection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Clinical Pathology (AJCP) is the official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pathology and the Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists. It is a leading international journal for publication of articles concerning novel anatomic pathology and laboratory medicine observations on human disease. AJCP emphasizes articles that focus on the application of evolving technologies for the diagnosis and characterization of diseases and conditions, as well as those that have a direct link toward improving patient care.
期刊最新文献
Culture and other direct detection methods to diagnose human granulocytic anaplasmosis. Validation of monocyte CD169 expression as a valuable rapid diagnostic marker of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral infections. Site-discordant expression of myeloid cell nuclear differentiation antigen in blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm. Epstein-Barr virus–positive, primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma, with transformation: Case report and review of the literature RhD-positive red blood cell allocation practice to RhD-negative patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
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