ArticleJornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia
Reliability of a rapid hematology stain for sputum cytology.
Article in Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel method to assess airway eosinophilia using sputum plugs.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Association of quality of life and disease control with cigarette smoking in patients with severe asthma.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2022Article
- Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation.Journal of reproduction & infertilityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the reliability of a rapid hematology stain for the cytological analysis of induced sputum samples.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study comparing the standard technique (May-Grünwald-Giemsa stain) with a rapid hematology stain (Diff-Quik). Of the 50 subjects included in the study, 21 had asthma, 19 had COPD, and 10 were healthy (controls). From the induced sputum samples collected, we prepared four slides: two were stained with May-Grünwald-Giemsa, and two were stained with Diff-Quik. The slides were read independently by two trained researchers blinded to the identification of the slides. The reliability for cell counting using the two techniques was evaluated by determining the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Agreement in the identification of neutrophilic and eosinophilic sputum between the observers and between the stains was evaluated with kappa statistics.
resultsIn our comparison of the two staining techniques, the ICCs indicated almost perfect interobserver agreement for neutrophil, eosinophil, and macrophage counts (ICC: 0.98-1.00), as well as substantial agreement for lymphocyte counts (ICC: 0.76-0.83). Intraobserver agreement was almost perfect for neutrophil, eosinophil, and macrophage counts (ICC: 0.96-0.99), whereas it was moderate to substantial for lymphocyte counts (ICC = 0.65 and 0.75 for the two observers, respectively). Interobserver agreement for the identification of eosinophilic and neutrophilic sputum using the two techniques ranged from substantial to almost perfect (kappa range: 0.91-1.00).
conclusionsThe use of Diff-Quik can be considered a reliable alternative for the processing of sputum samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.