临床医生委托病理学家进行外周血涂片复查的临床效用较低--参考实验室的观点。

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1093/jalm/jfae101
Sanjai Nagendra, Jamie Mongillo, Krystin Dodge, Pratistha Ranjitkar, Betty Burns, Lavonda Allen
{"title":"临床医生委托病理学家进行外周血涂片复查的临床效用较低--参考实验室的观点。","authors":"Sanjai Nagendra, Jamie Mongillo, Krystin Dodge, Pratistha Ranjitkar, Betty Burns, Lavonda Allen","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinician-ordered peripheral smear review by pathologist (CPSR) is commonly ordered and has been recommended for decades. However, the clinical utility of this labor-intensive test in the reference laboratory has not been examined. The objective of this study is to assess hematologic abnormalities identified in CPSR orders and to correlate them with complete blood count (CBC) and laboratory-derived smear review (LDSR) in the reference laboratory.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hundred consecutive CPSRs with corresponding CBCs from April 2023 were run by Sysmex® XN-11 analyzers, and their peripheral smears were examined by a board-certified hematopathologist. Hematologic abnormalities of CPSRs were assessed, and the correlation between CPSR and CBC/LDSR was reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nearly one-third of CPSRs (29%) had normal peripheral smears and CBCs. The majority of CPSRs showed nonspecific quantitative abnormalities. When compared against CPSR results, LDSR criteria identified 100% of hematologic abnormalities appropriately. Samples that were not flagged for review by LDSR rules were also reviewed (n = 174) to rule out clinically meaningful false negatives. One minor discrepancy (0.6% of cases) of small platelet aggregates was observed in a patient with a reported platelet count of 139 K/uL that was missed by the LDSR process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the reference laboratory setting, our findings demonstrate that LDSR adequately detects significant hematologic abnormalities and, therefore, CPSR should be discontinued.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinician-Ordered Peripheral Smear Review by a Pathologist Has Low Clinical Utility-A Reference Laboratory Perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Sanjai Nagendra, Jamie Mongillo, Krystin Dodge, Pratistha Ranjitkar, Betty Burns, Lavonda Allen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jalm/jfae101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinician-ordered peripheral smear review by pathologist (CPSR) is commonly ordered and has been recommended for decades. However, the clinical utility of this labor-intensive test in the reference laboratory has not been examined. The objective of this study is to assess hematologic abnormalities identified in CPSR orders and to correlate them with complete blood count (CBC) and laboratory-derived smear review (LDSR) in the reference laboratory.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hundred consecutive CPSRs with corresponding CBCs from April 2023 were run by Sysmex® XN-11 analyzers, and their peripheral smears were examined by a board-certified hematopathologist. Hematologic abnormalities of CPSRs were assessed, and the correlation between CPSR and CBC/LDSR was reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nearly one-third of CPSRs (29%) had normal peripheral smears and CBCs. The majority of CPSRs showed nonspecific quantitative abnormalities. When compared against CPSR results, LDSR criteria identified 100% of hematologic abnormalities appropriately. Samples that were not flagged for review by LDSR rules were also reviewed (n = 174) to rule out clinically meaningful false negatives. One minor discrepancy (0.6% of cases) of small platelet aggregates was observed in a patient with a reported platelet count of 139 K/uL that was missed by the LDSR process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the reference laboratory setting, our findings demonstrate that LDSR adequately detects significant hematologic abnormalities and, therefore, CPSR should be discontinued.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae101\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:临床医生要求病理学家进行外周血涂片检查(CPSR)是常见的检查项目,几十年来一直被推荐使用。然而,参考实验室尚未对这一劳动密集型检验的临床实用性进行研究。本研究的目的是评估 CPSR 订单中发现的血液学异常,并将其与参考实验室的全血细胞计数(CBC)和实验室涂片审查(LDSR)相关联:用Sysmex® XN-11分析仪对2023年4月以来的200份连续CPSR和相应的全血细胞计数进行分析,并由一名获得医学会认证的血液病理学家对其外周涂片进行检查。对 CPSR 的血液学异常进行了评估,并审查了 CPSR 与 CBC/LDSR 之间的相关性:近三分之一的 CPSR(29%)外周涂片和全血细胞计数正常。大多数 CPSR 显示非特异性定量异常。与 CPSR 结果相比,LDSR 标准能准确识别 100% 的血液学异常。我们还对 LDSR 规则未标记的样本(n = 174)进行了复查,以排除有临床意义的假阴性。在一名报告血小板计数为 139 K/uL 的患者身上观察到了血小板小聚集的轻微差异(占病例的 0.6%),但 LDSR 流程漏检了这一差异:结论:在参考实验室环境中,我们的研究结果表明 LDSR 能充分检测出重要的血液学异常,因此应停止使用 CPSR。
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
Clinician-Ordered Peripheral Smear Review by a Pathologist Has Low Clinical Utility-A Reference Laboratory Perspective.

Background: Clinician-ordered peripheral smear review by pathologist (CPSR) is commonly ordered and has been recommended for decades. However, the clinical utility of this labor-intensive test in the reference laboratory has not been examined. The objective of this study is to assess hematologic abnormalities identified in CPSR orders and to correlate them with complete blood count (CBC) and laboratory-derived smear review (LDSR) in the reference laboratory.

Methods: Two hundred consecutive CPSRs with corresponding CBCs from April 2023 were run by Sysmex® XN-11 analyzers, and their peripheral smears were examined by a board-certified hematopathologist. Hematologic abnormalities of CPSRs were assessed, and the correlation between CPSR and CBC/LDSR was reviewed.

Results: Nearly one-third of CPSRs (29%) had normal peripheral smears and CBCs. The majority of CPSRs showed nonspecific quantitative abnormalities. When compared against CPSR results, LDSR criteria identified 100% of hematologic abnormalities appropriately. Samples that were not flagged for review by LDSR rules were also reviewed (n = 174) to rule out clinically meaningful false negatives. One minor discrepancy (0.6% of cases) of small platelet aggregates was observed in a patient with a reported platelet count of 139 K/uL that was missed by the LDSR process.

Conclusions: In the reference laboratory setting, our findings demonstrate that LDSR adequately detects significant hematologic abnormalities and, therefore, CPSR should be discontinued.

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
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
期刊最新文献
Unraveling Uncertainty: The Impact of Biological and Analytical Variation on the Prediction Uncertainty of Categorical Prediction Models. Fundamental Uncertainty: Interplatform Inconsistency of FDA-Cleared Serological Tests. Commentary on Myocarditis or Myositis? Rising, Declining, and Rising of Critical Cardiac Troponin T Levels in a Patient Post Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy. Myocarditis or Myositis? Rising, Declining, and Rising of Critical Cardiac Troponin T Levels in a Patient Post Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy. Point-of-Care Testing Biosafety Decisions: An Investigation Summary Illustrating Current Decision-Making Process in Ontario, Canada.
×
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