4 236

Cited 0 times in

Comparison study of the rates of manual peripheral blood smear review from 3 automated hematology analyzers, Unicel DxH 800, ADVIA 2120i, and XE 2100, using international consensus group guidelines

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author김수정-
dc.contributor.author김윤정-
dc.contributor.author송재우-
dc.contributor.author최종락-
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-19T16:29:18Z-
dc.date.available2014-12-19T16:29:18Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.issn0003-9985-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/89622-
dc.description.abstractCONTEXT: In the clinical laboratory, it is important both to reduce the number of peripheral blood slide reviews to save time and money and to avoid reporting false results. OBJECTIVE: To determine differences in the slide review rates of 3 widely used automated hematologic analyzers, the Unicel DxH 800 (Beckman Coulter Inc, Fullerton, California), ADVIA 2120i (Siemens Diagnostics, Tarrytown, New York), and XE 2100 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan), using International Consensus Group for Hematology Review guidelines. DESIGN: A total of 1485 samples were tested, and 300 were manually reviewed. Slide review rates, sensitivity, specificity, and false-positive and false-negative rates were estimated using consensus group rules and compared using χ(2) tests, Fisher exact tests, or generalized estimating equations. ResultS: Unicel DxH 800, ADVIA 2120i, and XE 2100 showed 22.8%, 20.2%, and 28.6% slide review rates; 14.3%, 14.3%, and 9.7% false-negative rates; and 13.7, 11.3%, and 17.3% false-positive rates, respectively. All analyzers showed significantly higher false-negative rates than that of the consensus group (2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: False-negative rates were higher than the recommended levels. Among 3 automated hematologic analyzers, XE 2100 showed the highest rate of slide review. Because the present study clearly shows that the slide review rates have distinct characteristics among the studied analyzers, each individual laboratory should consider selecting the most appropriate analyzer according to clinical characteristics. Analyzers with high sensitivity may be advantageous in outpatient settings for screening patients, whereas analyzers with high specificity may be beneficial in inpatient settings for efficient patient care.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.relation.isPartOfARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHBlood Cell Count/instrumentation*-
dc.subject.MESHBlood Cell Count/standards-
dc.subject.MESHBlood Cell Count/statistics & numerical data-
dc.subject.MESHFalse Negative Reactions-
dc.subject.MESHFalse Positive Reactions-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHPractice Guidelines as Topic-
dc.subject.MESHSensitivity and Specificity-
dc.titleComparison study of the rates of manual peripheral blood smear review from 3 automated hematology analyzers, Unicel DxH 800, ADVIA 2120i, and XE 2100, using international consensus group guidelines-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Laboratory Medicine (진단검사의학)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSue Jung Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYoonjung Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSaeam Shin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJaewoo Song-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJong Rak Choi-
dc.identifier.doi23106587-
dc.admin.authorfalse-
dc.admin.mappingfalse-
dc.contributor.localIdA00634-
dc.contributor.localIdA00793-
dc.contributor.localIdA02054-
dc.contributor.localIdA04182-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00228-
dc.identifier.eissn1543-2165-
dc.identifier.pmid23106587-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.5858/arpa.2010-0757-OA-
dc.subject.keywordBlood Cell Count/instrumentation*-
dc.subject.keywordBlood Cell Count/standards-
dc.subject.keywordBlood Cell Count/statistics & numerical data-
dc.subject.keywordFalse Negative Reactions-
dc.subject.keywordFalse Positive Reactions-
dc.subject.keywordHumans-
dc.subject.keywordPractice Guidelines as Topic-
dc.subject.keywordSensitivity and Specificity-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Sue Jeong-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Yoon Jung-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameSong, Jae Woo-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChoi, Jong Rak-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Sue Jeong-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Yoon Jung-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorSong, Jae Woo-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorChoi, Jong Rak-
dc.citation.volume136-
dc.citation.number11-
dc.citation.startPage1408-
dc.citation.endPage1413-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE, Vol.136(11) : 1408-1413, 2012-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Laboratory Medicine (진단검사의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.