[Evaluation of blood cell morphology with the RBC Advanced Application: Which cut-offs are most needed for which specific abnormalities?]

Rhita Bennis, Francois Mullier, Pascale Saussoy
{"title":"[Evaluation of blood cell morphology with the RBC Advanced Application: Which cut-offs are most needed for which specific abnormalities?]","authors":"Rhita Bennis, Francois Mullier, Pascale Saussoy","doi":"10.1684/abc.2023.1837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The detection of erythrocyte morphological abnormalities is a valuable and sometimes overlooked element in the diagnostic management of anemias. The aim of this article is to evaluate the clinical performance of the different detection thresholds tested by our laboratory using the Cellavision RBC Advanced module, after manual reclassification by an experienced operator, and comparing them to the guidelines by the ICSH (International Council for Standardization in Haematology). We arbitrarily set thresholds at 1% for \"critical\" abnormalities (tear drop cells, target cells, schizocytes and spherocytes) except for sickle cells (threshold set at 0.01%). Our data show excellent sensitivity of 100% for the cut-offs defined by the investigation for tear drop cells and sickle cells, but low specificity for detection of associated clinical pathology compared with ICSH cut-offs, varying from 4% for teardrop cells (detection of myelofibrosis), 26% for target cells (detection of martial deficiency) to 55% for schizyocytes (presence of hemolytic anemia). Our results show a better specificity of the thresholds established by ICSH than our studied thresholds for the detection of the pathologies of concern, suggesting a better clinical relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":93870,"journal":{"name":"Annales de biologie clinique","volume":"81 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annales de biologie clinique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1684/abc.2023.1837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The detection of erythrocyte morphological abnormalities is a valuable and sometimes overlooked element in the diagnostic management of anemias. The aim of this article is to evaluate the clinical performance of the different detection thresholds tested by our laboratory using the Cellavision RBC Advanced module, after manual reclassification by an experienced operator, and comparing them to the guidelines by the ICSH (International Council for Standardization in Haematology). We arbitrarily set thresholds at 1% for "critical" abnormalities (tear drop cells, target cells, schizocytes and spherocytes) except for sickle cells (threshold set at 0.01%). Our data show excellent sensitivity of 100% for the cut-offs defined by the investigation for tear drop cells and sickle cells, but low specificity for detection of associated clinical pathology compared with ICSH cut-offs, varying from 4% for teardrop cells (detection of myelofibrosis), 26% for target cells (detection of martial deficiency) to 55% for schizyocytes (presence of hemolytic anemia). Our results show a better specificity of the thresholds established by ICSH than our studied thresholds for the detection of the pathologies of concern, suggesting a better clinical relevance.

红细胞形态学评价的高级应用:哪种异常最需要切断?]
检测红细胞形态异常是一个有价值的,有时被忽视的元素在诊断管理的贫血。本文的目的是评估我们实验室使用Cellavision RBC Advanced模块测试的不同检测阈值的临床性能,由经验丰富的操作员手动重新分类,并将其与ICSH(国际血液学标准化委员会)的指南进行比较。我们将“关键”异常(泪滴细胞、靶细胞、分裂细胞和球细胞)的阈值任意设置为1%,但镰状细胞除外(阈值设置为0.01%)。我们的数据显示,泪滴细胞和镰状细胞调查确定的临界值的灵敏度为100%,但与ICSH临界值相比,检测相关临床病理的特异性较低,泪滴细胞(检测骨髓纤维化)的特异性为4%,靶细胞(检测武性缺乏症)的特异性为26%,分裂细胞(存在溶血性贫血)的特异性为55%。我们的研究结果显示,ICSH建立的阈值比我们研究的阈值在检测关注的病理方面具有更好的特异性,这表明它具有更好的临床相关性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信