Comparison of 3 Leukogram Determination Methods in Avian Species: Phloxine B Stain, Blood Smear, and an Automated Analyzer.

IF 0.6 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Yasmeen Prud'homme, Fanny Chapelin, Guy Fitzgerald, Stéphane Lair, Christian Bédard, Guy Beauchamp, Marion R Desmarchelier
{"title":"Comparison of 3 Leukogram Determination Methods in Avian Species: Phloxine B Stain, Blood Smear, and an Automated Analyzer.","authors":"Yasmeen Prud'homme, Fanny Chapelin, Guy Fitzgerald, Stéphane Lair, Christian Bédard, Guy Beauchamp, Marion R Desmarchelier","doi":"10.1647/AVIANMS-D-24-00034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Because avian blood cells are nucleated, most automated methods used in mammalian species for total white blood cell (WBC) counts and differentials are considered inaccurate. Therefore, manual methods are routinely used in birds, although this could result in variations in methods across laboratories. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare 3 methods of avian leukogram determination: a commercial phloxine B stain method (PB), estimation from a blood smear (EBS), and an automated analyzer (Cell Dyn 3500, [CD]). Leukograms from 23 avian blood samples were compared using these methods. All samples were evaluated once by 4 observers to assess the repeatability and precision of the manual methods (PB and EBS). Analyses with the CD method were repeated 5 times on 3 samples to evaluate repeatability. The WBC counts and differentials obtained with CD were compared to the 2 other methods by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Agreement between WBC counts from EBS and PB and between CD and PB was assessed with Bland-Altman plots. Results based on the CD analyzer correlated poorly with the other methods. When compared with the EBS method, ICCs ranged from 0-4.3% for heterophils, 0-12% for lymphocytes, 0-23.4% for monocytes, and were equal to 0% for eosinophils. When comparing the CD with PB, ICCs for WBC counts ranged from 85.9-91.5% among observers. High interobserver agreement was seen for the leukograms obtained with EBS (ICC = 92.9%). A good agreement was noted between EBS and PB for WBC counts (ICC = 69.5-81.3%). Bland Altman plots indicated good agreement for WBC counts between EBS and PB (slope <i>P</i> value = 0.52) and CD and PB (slope <i>P</i> value = 0.13). Although less precise than PB, EBS proved to be clinically useful and was both time and cost-efficient. The CD method does not seem adapted for avian leukocyte differentials.</p>","PeriodicalId":15102,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery","volume":"39 2","pages":"88-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1647/AVIANMS-D-24-00034","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Because avian blood cells are nucleated, most automated methods used in mammalian species for total white blood cell (WBC) counts and differentials are considered inaccurate. Therefore, manual methods are routinely used in birds, although this could result in variations in methods across laboratories. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare 3 methods of avian leukogram determination: a commercial phloxine B stain method (PB), estimation from a blood smear (EBS), and an automated analyzer (Cell Dyn 3500, [CD]). Leukograms from 23 avian blood samples were compared using these methods. All samples were evaluated once by 4 observers to assess the repeatability and precision of the manual methods (PB and EBS). Analyses with the CD method were repeated 5 times on 3 samples to evaluate repeatability. The WBC counts and differentials obtained with CD were compared to the 2 other methods by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Agreement between WBC counts from EBS and PB and between CD and PB was assessed with Bland-Altman plots. Results based on the CD analyzer correlated poorly with the other methods. When compared with the EBS method, ICCs ranged from 0-4.3% for heterophils, 0-12% for lymphocytes, 0-23.4% for monocytes, and were equal to 0% for eosinophils. When comparing the CD with PB, ICCs for WBC counts ranged from 85.9-91.5% among observers. High interobserver agreement was seen for the leukograms obtained with EBS (ICC = 92.9%). A good agreement was noted between EBS and PB for WBC counts (ICC = 69.5-81.3%). Bland Altman plots indicated good agreement for WBC counts between EBS and PB (slope P value = 0.52) and CD and PB (slope P value = 0.13). Although less precise than PB, EBS proved to be clinically useful and was both time and cost-efficient. The CD method does not seem adapted for avian leukocyte differentials.

三种鸟类白图测定方法的比较:苯二酚B染色法、血液涂片法和自动分析仪。
由于禽类血细胞是有核的,大多数用于哺乳动物的白细胞计数和鉴别的自动化方法被认为是不准确的。因此,人工方法通常用于鸟类,尽管这可能导致不同实验室的方法存在差异。本研究的目的是评价和比较3种禽类白质谱测定方法:商业苯二酚B染色法(PB)、血涂片法(EBS)和自动分析仪(Cell Dyn 3500, [CD])。用这些方法比较了23份禽类血样的白象图。所有样本均由4名观察员评估1次,以评估手工方法(PB和EBS)的重复性和精密度。用CD法对3个样品重复分析5次,以评价重复性。通过计算类内相关系数(intraclass correlation coefficients, ICC),比较CD法与其他两种方法的WBC计数和差异。用Bland-Altman图评价EBS和PB、CD和PB的白细胞计数的一致性。基于CD分析仪的结果与其他方法的相关性较差。与EBS方法相比,嗜中性粒细胞的ICCs为0-4.3%,淋巴细胞为0-12%,单核细胞为0-23.4%,嗜酸性粒细胞为0%。当比较CD和PB时,观察者WBC计数的icc范围为85.9-91.5%。用EBS获得的白图具有较高的观察者间一致性(ICC = 92.9%)。EBS和PB在WBC计数上有很好的一致性(ICC = 69.5-81.3%)。Bland Altman图显示EBS和PB(斜率P值= 0.52)以及CD和PB(斜率P值= 0.13)之间的WBC计数吻合良好。虽然不如PB精确,但EBS在临床上证明是有用的,并且既省时又经济。CD方法似乎不适合禽类白细胞的鉴别。
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
Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery
Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery is an international journal of the medicine and surgery of both captive and wild birds. Published materials include scientific articles, case reports, editorials, abstracts, new research, and book reviews.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信