Evaluation of criteria of manual blood smear review following automated complete blood counts in a large university hospital

Samuel Ricardo Comar, Mariester Malvezzi, Ricardo Pasquini
{"title":"Evaluation of criteria of manual blood smear review following automated complete blood counts in a large university hospital","authors":"Samuel Ricardo Comar,&nbsp;Mariester Malvezzi,&nbsp;Ricardo Pasquini","doi":"10.1016/j.bjhh.2017.06.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There is great interest in reducing the number of automated complete blood counts requiring manual blood smear reviews without sacrificing the quality of patient care. This study was aimed at evaluating and establishing appropriate screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews to improve the performance in a hematology laboratory.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>A total of 1977 consecutive samples from the daily workload were used to evaluate four sets of screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews to identify samples with positive smear findings. Three sets of screening criteria were arbitrarily proposed in this study: Group 1 (narrow ranges), Group 2 (intermediate ranges), and Group 3 (wide limits) and one set (Group 4) was adapted from the International Society for Laboratory Hematology. All samples were run on Sysmex hematology analyzers and were investigated using manual blood smear reviews. Diagnostic accuracy and agreement were performed for each set of screening criteria, including an investigation of microscopic review rate and efficiency.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The microscopic review rates for Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 73.85%, 54.52%, 46.33% and 46.38%, respectively; the false-negative rates were 0.50%, 1.97%, 2.73% and 3.95%, respectively. The efficiency and negative predictive values of Group 3 were 73.04% and 4.91%, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Group 3 had the best relationship between safety (false-negative rate: ≤3%) and efficiency to estimate the limits of automation in performing complete blood counts. This study strengthens the importance of establishing screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews, which account for the different contexts in which hematological determinations are performed. Each laboratory should optimize the screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews in order to maximize their efficiency and safety.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21233,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia","volume":"39 4","pages":"Pages 306-317"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.bjhh.2017.06.007","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1516848417300981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Background

There is great interest in reducing the number of automated complete blood counts requiring manual blood smear reviews without sacrificing the quality of patient care. This study was aimed at evaluating and establishing appropriate screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews to improve the performance in a hematology laboratory.

Method

A total of 1977 consecutive samples from the daily workload were used to evaluate four sets of screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews to identify samples with positive smear findings. Three sets of screening criteria were arbitrarily proposed in this study: Group 1 (narrow ranges), Group 2 (intermediate ranges), and Group 3 (wide limits) and one set (Group 4) was adapted from the International Society for Laboratory Hematology. All samples were run on Sysmex hematology analyzers and were investigated using manual blood smear reviews. Diagnostic accuracy and agreement were performed for each set of screening criteria, including an investigation of microscopic review rate and efficiency.

Results

The microscopic review rates for Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 73.85%, 54.52%, 46.33% and 46.38%, respectively; the false-negative rates were 0.50%, 1.97%, 2.73% and 3.95%, respectively. The efficiency and negative predictive values of Group 3 were 73.04% and 4.91%, respectively.

Conclusions

Group 3 had the best relationship between safety (false-negative rate: ≤3%) and efficiency to estimate the limits of automation in performing complete blood counts. This study strengthens the importance of establishing screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews, which account for the different contexts in which hematological determinations are performed. Each laboratory should optimize the screening criteria for manual blood smear reviews in order to maximize their efficiency and safety.

Abstract Image

某大型大学医院全自动全血细胞计数后手工血液涂片检查标准的评价
背景:在不牺牲患者护理质量的情况下,减少需要人工血液涂片检查的全自动全血细胞计数的数量是非常有兴趣的。本研究旨在评估和建立适当的筛选标准的手工血液涂片审查,以提高在血液学实验室的性能。方法从日常工作中连续抽取1977个样本,评估4套手工血液涂片检查的筛选标准,以确定涂片阳性的样本。本研究随机提出了三组筛选标准:第1组(窄范围)、第2组(中间范围)和第3组(宽范围),还有一组(第4组)改编自国际实验室血液学学会。所有样本均在Sysmex血液学分析仪上运行,并使用手工血液涂片检查进行调查。诊断的准确性和一致性进行了每一套筛选标准,包括显微镜检查率和效率的调查。结果1、2、3、4组显微复查率分别为73.85%、54.52%、46.33%、46.38%;假阴性检出率分别为0.50%、1.97%、2.73%和3.95%。第3组有效率为73.04%,阴性预测值为4.91%。结论组3在评估全血细胞计数自动化极限的安全性(假阴性率≤3%)和效率之间的关系最好。这项研究加强了建立手工血液涂片检查筛选标准的重要性,这说明了在不同的情况下进行血液学检测。各实验室应优化人工血液涂片审查的筛选标准,以最大限度地提高其效率和安全性。
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
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: A Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia é um periódico científico de propriedade da Associação Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia, publicada bimestralmente. A abreviatura de seu título é Rev. Bras. Hematol. Hemoter., que deve ser usada em bibliografias, notas de rodapé e em referências e legendas bibliográficas.
×
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