快速人工技术不具备足够的灵敏度和特异性,无法在化疗前可靠地区分中性粒细胞减少和非中性粒细胞减少的狗。

IF 1.7 2区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
M Walton-Clark, T Henriques, M Best
{"title":"快速人工技术不具备足够的灵敏度和特异性,无法在化疗前可靠地区分中性粒细胞减少和非中性粒细胞减少的狗。","authors":"M Walton-Clark, T Henriques, M Best","doi":"10.1111/jsap.13773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop and determine the accuracy of a rapid manual technique for the detection of pre-treatment neutropenia (<1.50 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L) in dogs receiving chemotherapy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty canine blood smears with known neutrophil counts between 1.00 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L and 3.00 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L were reviewed by two internal medicine clinicians and linear regressions performed to determine a cut-off value for a manual neutrophil count equating to >1.50 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L. Consecutive blood samples from dogs undergoing chemotherapy were processed through an automated haematology analyser (VetScan HM5, Abaxis), and prospective blinded manual review by the same two observers assessed whether the manual technique could accurately detect dogs with neutropenia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Linear regression analysis found a cut-off of >26 neutrophils per 10 low power fields at the monolayer to be equivalent to a neutrophil count of >1.5 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L. A total of 183 blood samples from 43 dogs were reviewed. Automated techniques detected neutropenia in 16 of 183 (9%) blood samples. Using the manual cut-off technique, 13 of 16 (81%) and 11 of 16 (69%) of neutropenic samples were correctly identified by observer 1 and observer 2, respectively. Twenty-three of 167 non-neutropenic dogs (14%) were incorrectly classified as neutropenic by observer 1, and 27 (16%) by observer 2. Inter-observer agreement was 92%. Sensitivity was 81% (95% confidence interval 54% to 96%) for observer 1 and 69% (95% confidence interval 41% to 89%) for observer 2. Specificity was 86% (95% confidence interval 80% to 91%) for observer 1 and 84% (95% confidence interval 77% to 89%) for observer 2.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Manual estimation resulted in up to five of 16 (31%) neutropenic samples being incorrectly classified. A full automated differential cell count remains preferable.</p>","PeriodicalId":17062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Small Animal Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A rapid manual technique does not have adequate sensitivity and specificity to reliably discriminate between neutropenic and non-neutropenic dogs prior to administration of chemotherapy.\",\"authors\":\"M Walton-Clark, T Henriques, M Best\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jsap.13773\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop and determine the accuracy of a rapid manual technique for the detection of pre-treatment neutropenia (<1.50 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L) in dogs receiving chemotherapy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty canine blood smears with known neutrophil counts between 1.00 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L and 3.00 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L were reviewed by two internal medicine clinicians and linear regressions performed to determine a cut-off value for a manual neutrophil count equating to >1.50 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L. Consecutive blood samples from dogs undergoing chemotherapy were processed through an automated haematology analyser (VetScan HM5, Abaxis), and prospective blinded manual review by the same two observers assessed whether the manual technique could accurately detect dogs with neutropenia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Linear regression analysis found a cut-off of >26 neutrophils per 10 low power fields at the monolayer to be equivalent to a neutrophil count of >1.5 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L. A total of 183 blood samples from 43 dogs were reviewed. Automated techniques detected neutropenia in 16 of 183 (9%) blood samples. Using the manual cut-off technique, 13 of 16 (81%) and 11 of 16 (69%) of neutropenic samples were correctly identified by observer 1 and observer 2, respectively. Twenty-three of 167 non-neutropenic dogs (14%) were incorrectly classified as neutropenic by observer 1, and 27 (16%) by observer 2. Inter-observer agreement was 92%. Sensitivity was 81% (95% confidence interval 54% to 96%) for observer 1 and 69% (95% confidence interval 41% to 89%) for observer 2. Specificity was 86% (95% confidence interval 80% to 91%) for observer 1 and 84% (95% confidence interval 77% to 89%) for observer 2.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Manual estimation resulted in up to five of 16 (31%) neutropenic samples being incorrectly classified. A full automated differential cell count remains preferable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Small Animal Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Small Animal Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13773\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Small Animal Practice","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13773","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的材料与方法:由两名内科临床医生对 20 份已知中性粒细胞计数在 1.00 × 109/L 和 3.00 × 109/L 之间的犬血液涂片进行审查,并进行线性回归,以确定中性粒细胞计数(9/L)的临界值:由两名内科临床医生对已知中性粒细胞计数在 1.00 × 109/L 和 3.00 × 109/L 之间的 20 份犬血液涂片进行复查,并进行线性回归,以确定人工中性粒细胞计数大于 1.50 × 109/L 的临界值。通过自动血液分析仪(VetScan HM5,Abaxis)处理接受化疗的犬的连续血液样本,并由同两名观察员进行前瞻性盲法人工审核,以评估人工技术是否能准确检测出患有中性粒细胞减少症的犬:线性回归分析发现,单层每 10 个低倍视野中嗜中性粒细胞数大于 26 个的临界值相当于嗜中性粒细胞数大于 1.5 × 109/L。共对 43 只狗的 183 份血液样本进行了审查。在 183 份血样中,有 16 份(9%)通过自动技术检测出中性粒细胞减少症。观察者 1 和观察者 2 使用手动截断技术分别正确识别了 16 份中性粒细胞减少样本中的 13 份(81%)和 11 份(69%)。在 167 只非中性粒细胞减少的狗中,有 23 只(14%)被观察者 1 错误地归类为中性粒细胞减少,27 只(16%)被观察者 2 错误地归类为中性粒细胞减少。观察者之间的一致性为 92%。观察者 1 的灵敏度为 81%(95% 置信区间为 54% 至 96%),观察者 2 的灵敏度为 69%(95% 置信区间为 41% 至 89%)。特异性方面,观察者 1 为 86%(95% 置信区间为 80%-91%),观察者 2 为 84%(95% 置信区间为 77%-89%):人工估算导致 16 份中性粒细胞样本中有多达 5 份(31%)被错误分类。全自动差值细胞计数仍然更可取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A rapid manual technique does not have adequate sensitivity and specificity to reliably discriminate between neutropenic and non-neutropenic dogs prior to administration of chemotherapy.

Objectives: To develop and determine the accuracy of a rapid manual technique for the detection of pre-treatment neutropenia (<1.50 × 109/L) in dogs receiving chemotherapy.

Materials and methods: Twenty canine blood smears with known neutrophil counts between 1.00 × 109/L and 3.00 × 109/L were reviewed by two internal medicine clinicians and linear regressions performed to determine a cut-off value for a manual neutrophil count equating to >1.50 × 109/L. Consecutive blood samples from dogs undergoing chemotherapy were processed through an automated haematology analyser (VetScan HM5, Abaxis), and prospective blinded manual review by the same two observers assessed whether the manual technique could accurately detect dogs with neutropenia.

Results: Linear regression analysis found a cut-off of >26 neutrophils per 10 low power fields at the monolayer to be equivalent to a neutrophil count of >1.5 × 109/L. A total of 183 blood samples from 43 dogs were reviewed. Automated techniques detected neutropenia in 16 of 183 (9%) blood samples. Using the manual cut-off technique, 13 of 16 (81%) and 11 of 16 (69%) of neutropenic samples were correctly identified by observer 1 and observer 2, respectively. Twenty-three of 167 non-neutropenic dogs (14%) were incorrectly classified as neutropenic by observer 1, and 27 (16%) by observer 2. Inter-observer agreement was 92%. Sensitivity was 81% (95% confidence interval 54% to 96%) for observer 1 and 69% (95% confidence interval 41% to 89%) for observer 2. Specificity was 86% (95% confidence interval 80% to 91%) for observer 1 and 84% (95% confidence interval 77% to 89%) for observer 2.

Clinical significance: Manual estimation resulted in up to five of 16 (31%) neutropenic samples being incorrectly classified. A full automated differential cell count remains preferable.

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
Journal of Small Animal Practice
Journal of Small Animal Practice 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
117
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Small Animal Practice (JSAP) is a monthly peer-reviewed publication integrating clinical research papers and case reports from international sources, covering all aspects of medicine and surgery relating to dogs, cats and other small animals. These papers facilitate the dissemination and implementation of new ideas and techniques relating to clinical veterinary practice, with the ultimate aim of promoting best practice. JSAP publishes high quality original articles, as well as other scientific and educational information. New developments are placed in perspective, encompassing new concepts and peer commentary. The target audience is veterinarians primarily engaged in the practise of small animal medicine and surgery. In addition to original articles, JSAP will publish invited editorials (relating to a manuscript in the same issue or a topic of current interest), review articles, which provide in-depth discussion of important clinical issues, and other scientific and educational information from around the world. The final decision on publication of a manuscript rests with the Editorial Board and ultimately with the Editor. All papers, regardless of type, represent the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of the Editor, the Association or the Publisher. The Journal of Small Animal Practice is published on behalf of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association and is also the official scientific journal of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association
×
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