ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2017
Extent of agreement between the body fluid model of Sysmex XN-20 and the manual microscopy method.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2017. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- High Fluorescent Cells on Automated Body Fluid Analysis as Discriminator for Malignant Cell Detection.South Asian journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Innovative Biomarkers for Diagnosing Malignant Ascites in Liver Cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2025Article
- Adequate scattergram interpretation increases the reliability of automated polymorphonuclear (pmn) cell counts from ascitic fluid of patients with liver cirrhosis.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the correlations concerning cellular component analysis between the Sysmex XN-20 body fluid (BF) model and manual microscopy have been investigated by several studies, the extent of agreement between these two methods has not been investigated.
methodsA total of 90 BF samples were prospectively collected and analyzed using the Sysmex XN-20 BF model and microscopy. The extent of agreement between these two methods was evaluated using the Bland-Altman approach. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was employed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-fluorescence (HF) BF cells for malignant diseases.
resultsThe agreements of white blood cell (WBC), red blood cell (RBC), and percentages of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes between the Sysmex XN-20 BF model and manual microscopy were imperfect. The areas under the ROC curves for absolute and relative HF cells were 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.78) and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.48-0.72), respectively.
conclusionDue to the Sysmex XN-20 BF model's imperfect agreement with manual microscopy and its weak diagnostic accuracy for malignant diseases, the current evidence does not support replacing manual microscopy with this model in clinical practice.
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.