Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorEilertsen, Heidi
dc.contributor.authorSæther, Per Christian
dc.contributor.authorHenriksson, Carola
dc.contributor.authorPetersen, Anne-Sofie
dc.contributor.authorHagve, Tor-Arne
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-05T08:44:26Z
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-28T12:33:57Z
dc.date.available2020-03-05T08:44:26Z
dc.date.available2020-03-28T12:33:57Z
dc.date.issued2019-01-11
dc.identifier.citationEilertsen H, Sæther PC, Henriksson C, Petersen, Hagve T. Evaluation of the detection of blasts by Sysmex hematology instruments, CellaVision DM96, and manual microscopy using flow cytometry as the confirmatory method. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology (IJLH). 2019:1-7en
dc.identifier.issn1751-5521
dc.identifier.issn1751-5521
dc.identifier.issn1751-553X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10642/8334
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic ability of blast flags generated by Sysmex instruments (XE/XN) by comparing with immunophenotyping by flow cytometry (IFCM). Additionally, the ability of manual microscopy and CellaVision DM96 (pre‐ and reclassification) to predict the presence of “true” blasts was investigated. Methods: Blood samples (n = 240) with suspect pathology flags reported by the XE were collected from the daily workload and examined by the XN, by manual microscopy, by CellaVision DM96 and by IFCM (CytoDiff Panel). Results: The ROC analysis for blasts showed an area under the curve of 0.64 (“Blasts?”) (XE), 0.57 (“Blasts/Abn Lympho?”) (XN), 0.75 (CellaVision preclassification procedure), 0.78 (CellaVision reclassification procedure), and 0.81 (manual microscopy). The sensitivity of blast detection varied between the methods from 0.41 (XE) to 0.90 (XN), and the specificity varied from 0.17 (XN) to 0.95 (CellaVision reclassification). Conclusions: The CellaVision reclassification procedure has a diagnostic ability for predicting blasts close to that of manual microscopy. The blood smear methods show a notable number of false negative results. The Sysmex XN reported a higher rate of true positive blast flags than the XE. Taken together, the CytoDiff method could be a useful alternative to smear examination to correctly identify blasts.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWileyen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesInternational Journal of Laboratory Hematology;Volume 41, Issue 3, June 2019
dc.subjectBlast flagsen
dc.subjectCellaVisionen
dc.subjectCytoDiffen
dc.subjectFlow cytometryen
dc.subjectSysmex hematology instrumentsen
dc.titleEvaluation of the detection of blasts by Sysmex hematology instruments, CellaVision DM96, and manual microscopy using flow cytometry as the confirmatory methoden
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.date.updated2020-03-05T08:44:26Z
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12980
dc.identifier.cristin1695227
dc.source.journalInternational Journal of Laboratory Hematology (IJLH)


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel