Validation of the International Consensus Group Criteria for Slide Review Following Automated Complete Blood Count at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia.

IF 2.1 Q3 HEMATOLOGY
Girum Tesfaye Kiya, Aklilu Getachew Mamo, Sintayehu Asaye Biya, Dejene Gebre Gobena, Natal Demeke, Tilahun Yemane Shenkutie
{"title":"Validation of the International Consensus Group Criteria for Slide Review Following Automated Complete Blood Count at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia.","authors":"Girum Tesfaye Kiya,&nbsp;Aklilu Getachew Mamo,&nbsp;Sintayehu Asaye Biya,&nbsp;Dejene Gebre Gobena,&nbsp;Natal Demeke,&nbsp;Tilahun Yemane Shenkutie","doi":"10.2147/JBM.S402940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The international consensus group suggested criteria for action following automated complete blood count and white blood cell differential analysis. These criteria were set based on data from laboratories of developed countries. It is highly important to validate the criteria in developing countries where infectious diseases are still rampant that can affect blood cell count and morphology. Thus, this study aimed to validate the consensus group criteria for slide review at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia from November 1, 2020 to February 30, 2021.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study comprised a total of 1685 patient samples from the daily laboratory workload of CBC analysis. The samples were collected in K2-EDTA tubes (Becton Dickinson) and analyzed using Coulter DxH 800 and Sysmex XT-1880 hematology analyzers. A slide review was done on two Wright-stained slides for each sample. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 20 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 39.8% positive findings, the majority of which were related to red blood cells. The false negative and false positive rates for Sysmex and Coulter analyzer were 2.4% vs 4.8%; and 4.6% vs 4.7%, respectively. The false negative rate was unacceptably higher when we used physicians' triggered slide review, which was 17.3% and 17.9% for Sysmex and Coulter analyzers, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Generally, the consensus group rules are suitable to use in our setting. However, we might still need to modify the rules, particularly to reduce the review rates. It is also necessary to confirm the rules with case mixes proportionally derived from the source population.</p>","PeriodicalId":15166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Blood Medicine","volume":"14 ","pages":"213-220"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/01/14/jbm-14-213.PMC10046196.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Blood Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JBM.S402940","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The international consensus group suggested criteria for action following automated complete blood count and white blood cell differential analysis. These criteria were set based on data from laboratories of developed countries. It is highly important to validate the criteria in developing countries where infectious diseases are still rampant that can affect blood cell count and morphology. Thus, this study aimed to validate the consensus group criteria for slide review at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia from November 1, 2020 to February 30, 2021.

Methods: The study comprised a total of 1685 patient samples from the daily laboratory workload of CBC analysis. The samples were collected in K2-EDTA tubes (Becton Dickinson) and analyzed using Coulter DxH 800 and Sysmex XT-1880 hematology analyzers. A slide review was done on two Wright-stained slides for each sample. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 20 software.

Results: There were 39.8% positive findings, the majority of which were related to red blood cells. The false negative and false positive rates for Sysmex and Coulter analyzer were 2.4% vs 4.8%; and 4.6% vs 4.7%, respectively. The false negative rate was unacceptably higher when we used physicians' triggered slide review, which was 17.3% and 17.9% for Sysmex and Coulter analyzers, respectively.

Conclusion: Generally, the consensus group rules are suitable to use in our setting. However, we might still need to modify the rules, particularly to reduce the review rates. It is also necessary to confirm the rules with case mixes proportionally derived from the source population.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

埃塞俄比亚Jimma医疗中心自动全血细胞计数后载玻片检查国际共识组标准的验证。
背景:国际共识小组提出了自动全血细胞计数和白细胞差异分析后的行动标准。这些标准是根据发达国家实验室的数据制定的。在传染病仍然猖獗的发展中国家验证这些标准是非常重要的,这些传染病可以影响血细胞计数和形态。因此,本研究旨在验证2020年11月1日至2021年2月30日在埃塞俄比亚Jimma医疗中心进行的幻灯片审查的共识组标准。方法:本研究从日常CBC分析实验室工作量中抽取1685例患者样本。样品采集于K2-EDTA管(Becton Dickinson)中,使用Coulter DxH 800和Sysmex XT-1880血液学分析仪进行分析。对每个样品的两张赖特染色的载玻片进行载玻片检查。所有统计分析均采用SPSS version 20软件进行。结果:阳性检出率为39.8%,主要与红细胞有关。Sysmex和Coulter的假阴性和假阳性检出率分别为2.4%和4.8%;分别是4.6%和4.7%。当我们使用医生触发的幻灯片审查时,假阴性率高得令人无法接受,Sysmex和Coulter分析仪的假阴性率分别为17.3%和17.9%。结论:一般情况下,共识组规则适用于我们的设置。然而,我们可能仍然需要修改规则,特别是降低审查率。也有必要用来自源人群的病例混合比例来确认这些规则。
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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Blood Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed, open access, online journal publishing laboratory, experimental and clinical aspects of all topics pertaining to blood based medicine including but not limited to: Transfusion Medicine (blood components, stem cell transplantation, apheresis, gene based therapeutics), Blood collection, Donor issues, Transmittable diseases, and Blood banking logistics, Immunohematology, Artificial and alternative blood based therapeutics, Hematology including disorders/pathology related to leukocytes/immunology, red cells, platelets and hemostasis, Biotechnology/nanotechnology of blood related medicine, Legal aspects of blood medicine, Historical perspectives. Original research, short reports, reviews, case reports and commentaries are invited.
×
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