Comparing the performance of three panels rules of blood smear review criteria on an Italian multicenter evaluation

Autor:	A. Di Fabio, Francesco Dima, Luca Germagnoli, Sabrina Buoro, Maria Gioia, Maria Lorubbio, Silvia Pipitone, Maria Laura Ciardelli, Fosca Siviero, T. Lari, Michela Seghezzi, Sara Francione, G Da Rin, Anna Benegiamo, A. Marini, M. Borin, Fabiana Fiorini, A. Papa, Alessandra Fanelli
Rok vydání:	2017
Předmět:	blood smear review rules Male medicine.medical_specialty Clinical Biochemistry Diagnostic accuracy 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Hematology analyzer Statistics False positive paradox Medicine Humans optical microscopy automated count hematological testing Female Hematologic Tests Italy business.industry Hematological testing Biochemistry (medical) Hematology General Medicine computer.file_format Gold standard (test) Peripheral blood Surgery Blood smear 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ABX test business computer
Zdroj:	International journal of laboratory hematology. 39(6)
ISSN:	1751-553X
Popis:	Background The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of blood smear review criteria, by means of three different panel rules, those proposed by: the International Consensus Group for Hematology [41-ICGH rules], the Italian Survey [IS rules] and the Working Group on Hematology-SIBioC (WGH) consensus rules (WGH rules). Methods This study is based on 2707 peripheral blood (PB) samples referred for routine hematological testing to the WGH-associated laboratories displaced all over the Italian territory. The PB samples were processed on seven different hematology analyzers (HAs): Advia 2120i, XE-2100, BC-6800, ABX Pentra, XN-1000, Cell-DYN Sapphire, and DxH800, respectively. All the results provided by the HAs were analyzed through the application of three different blood smear review criteria: that is, the 41-ICGH, IS, and WGH rules. Finally, data were compared with those obtained by optical microscopy (OM), as the current gold standard. Results The overall the agreement OM classification with ICGH, IS, and WGH panel rules is 0.83, 0.83, and 0.85, respectively. The false negatives are 2.1%, 3.0%, and 2.9%, while false positives are 15.1%, 13.7%, and 11.7%, respectively. All the seven HAs showed variable interinstrument performance, as three different criteria for OM review were adopted on each of them from time to time. Conclusion These results presented show that the customization of validation rules is necessary for enhancing the quality of hematological testing and optimizing workflow.
Databáze:	OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:	https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::5590a8b017a80a6d2dfa95cebd0e58b3 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28975714 Zobrazit plný text záznamu Plný text ve formátu PDF Plný text ve formátu HTML
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje	K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.