CellaVision 预分类中性粒细胞计数的诊断性能--是时候绕过重新分类了吗?

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Mikael Christiansen, Anders Abildgaard, Julie Brogaard Larsen, Gitte Tindbæk, Else Marie Vestergaard
{"title":"CellaVision 预分类中性粒细胞计数的诊断性能--是时候绕过重新分类了吗?","authors":"Mikael Christiansen, Anders Abildgaard, Julie Brogaard Larsen, Gitte Tindbæk, Else Marie Vestergaard","doi":"10.1080/00365513.2024.2377967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to perform a method comparison between the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count and the reclassification neutrophil count performed by trained laboratory technicians, and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the preclassification neutrophil count at clinical decision levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively identified patient samples through 2019-2022 in which the differential count was performed on Cellavision (<i>n</i> = 4,354). Data on sample characteristics and leukocyte- and differential counts was extracted from the electronic medical journal. For each sample, data containing the pre- and reclassification leukocyte classification, respectively, was extracted from the Cellavision software. Method comparison between the pre-and reclassification neutrophil count was performed using Bland Altman analysis. Diagnostic performance of the preclassification neutrophil count was evaluated according to four pre-specified categories of results with the reclassification as reference method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median difference between the pre- and reclassification neutrophil count was 0.044 x 10<sup>9</sup>/L. The preclassification neutrophil count categorised 95.6% of all samples correctly according to the four categories. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting neutrophilia > 7.00 x 10<sup>9</sup>/L was 98.8%, 97.2%, 95.8%, and 99.2%, respectively. In samples with leukopenia (<i>n</i> = 543), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting severe neutropenia (< 0.50 x 10<sup>9</sup>/L) was 97.7%, 99.1%, 98.6%, and 98.5%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The diagnostic performance of the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count was satisfactory. The preclassification neutrophil count may be released to the electronic medical journal to improve turnaround time and benefit laboratory management.</p>","PeriodicalId":21474,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"278-284"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic performance of the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count - time to bypass the reclassification?\",\"authors\":\"Mikael Christiansen, Anders Abildgaard, Julie Brogaard Larsen, Gitte Tindbæk, Else Marie Vestergaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00365513.2024.2377967\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to perform a method comparison between the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count and the reclassification neutrophil count performed by trained laboratory technicians, and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the preclassification neutrophil count at clinical decision levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively identified patient samples through 2019-2022 in which the differential count was performed on Cellavision (<i>n</i> = 4,354). Data on sample characteristics and leukocyte- and differential counts was extracted from the electronic medical journal. For each sample, data containing the pre- and reclassification leukocyte classification, respectively, was extracted from the Cellavision software. Method comparison between the pre-and reclassification neutrophil count was performed using Bland Altman analysis. Diagnostic performance of the preclassification neutrophil count was evaluated according to four pre-specified categories of results with the reclassification as reference method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median difference between the pre- and reclassification neutrophil count was 0.044 x 10<sup>9</sup>/L. The preclassification neutrophil count categorised 95.6% of all samples correctly according to the four categories. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting neutrophilia > 7.00 x 10<sup>9</sup>/L was 98.8%, 97.2%, 95.8%, and 99.2%, respectively. In samples with leukopenia (<i>n</i> = 543), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting severe neutropenia (< 0.50 x 10<sup>9</sup>/L) was 97.7%, 99.1%, 98.6%, and 98.5%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The diagnostic performance of the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count was satisfactory. The preclassification neutrophil count may be released to the electronic medical journal to improve turnaround time and benefit laboratory management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"278-284\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2024.2377967\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2024.2377967","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在对 CellaVision 预分类中性粒细胞计数与训练有素的实验室技术人员进行的再分类中性粒细胞计数进行方法比较,并评估预分类中性粒细胞计数在临床决策层面的诊断性能:我们回顾性地确定了截至 2019-2022 年在 Cellavision 上进行差分计数的患者样本(n = 4354)。样本特征、白细胞计数和差值计数数据均从电子医学期刊中提取。每个样本的白细胞分类前和分类后的数据分别从 Cellavision 软件中提取。使用布兰德-阿尔特曼分析法对分类前和分类后的中性粒细胞计数进行比较。根据预先指定的四个结果类别,以重新分类作为参考方法,评估了重新分类前中性粒细胞计数的诊断性能:结果:预分类和再分类中性粒细胞计数的中位数差异为 0.044 x 109/L。在所有样本中,95.6%的中性粒细胞计数分类结果正确。检测中性粒细胞> 7.00 x 109/L的灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为98.8%、97.2%、95.8%和99.2%。在白细胞减少症样本(n = 543)中,检测严重中性粒细胞减少症(< 0.50 x 109/L)的灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为 97.7%、99.1%、98.6% 和 98.5%:结论:CellaVision预分类中性粒细胞计数的诊断性能令人满意。预分类中性粒细胞计数可在电子医学期刊上发布,以缩短周转时间,有利于实验室管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic performance of the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count - time to bypass the reclassification?

Objectives: The objective of this study was to perform a method comparison between the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count and the reclassification neutrophil count performed by trained laboratory technicians, and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the preclassification neutrophil count at clinical decision levels.

Methods: We retrospectively identified patient samples through 2019-2022 in which the differential count was performed on Cellavision (n = 4,354). Data on sample characteristics and leukocyte- and differential counts was extracted from the electronic medical journal. For each sample, data containing the pre- and reclassification leukocyte classification, respectively, was extracted from the Cellavision software. Method comparison between the pre-and reclassification neutrophil count was performed using Bland Altman analysis. Diagnostic performance of the preclassification neutrophil count was evaluated according to four pre-specified categories of results with the reclassification as reference method.

Results: The median difference between the pre- and reclassification neutrophil count was 0.044 x 109/L. The preclassification neutrophil count categorised 95.6% of all samples correctly according to the four categories. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting neutrophilia > 7.00 x 109/L was 98.8%, 97.2%, 95.8%, and 99.2%, respectively. In samples with leukopenia (n = 543), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting severe neutropenia (< 0.50 x 109/L) was 97.7%, 99.1%, 98.6%, and 98.5%, respectively.

Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count was satisfactory. The preclassification neutrophil count may be released to the electronic medical journal to improve turnaround time and benefit laboratory management.

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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
85
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation is an international scientific journal covering clinically oriented biochemical and physiological research. Since the launch of the journal in 1949, it has been a forum for international laboratory medicine, closely related to, and edited by, The Scandinavian Society for Clinical Chemistry. The journal contains peer-reviewed articles, editorials, invited reviews, and short technical notes, as well as several supplements each year. Supplements consist of monographs, and symposium and congress reports covering subjects within clinical chemistry and clinical physiology.
×
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