Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28856188›Full record

ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2016

The stability of quantitative blood count parameters using the ADVIA 2120i hematology analyzer.

Erzsébet Pintér, Kinga László, Ildikó Schüszler, Judit Konderák

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparison Between Manual and Automated Methods of Counting Reticulocytes and the Effect of Sample Storage on Reticulocyte Count: A Cross-Sectional Study from Southern India.Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Erzsébet PintérCentral Laboratory Synlab, Mansfeld Péter Str. 1-3, H-1211 Budapest, Hungary.
Kinga LászlóSynlab Laboratory, Seregélyesi Str. 3, H-8000 Székesfehérvár, Hungary.
Ildikó SchüszlerCentral Laboratory Synlab, Mansfeld Péter Str. 1-3, H-1211 Budapest, Hungary.
Judit KonderákCentral Laboratory Synlab, Mansfeld Péter Str. 1-3, H-1211 Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the stability of complete blood count (CBC) parameters by measuring at multiple time points up to 72 h after venepuncture.

methods36 samples submitted for routine haematology were measured at 0, 8, 24, 48, 72 h. 18 samples were kept at room temperature (23-25 °C) and the other 18 at 4 °C. The stability of the CBC parameters was determined by comparing the results to the 0 h sample. White Blood Cell Count (WBC), Hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, Red Blood Cell (RBC) count, Hematocrit (Hct), Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV), Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin (MCH), Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration (MCHC), Cellular Hemoglobin Concentration Mean (CHCM), Mean Platelet Volume (MPV), RBC distribution width (RDW), Platelet (PLT) and Reticulocyte counts were studied.

resultsMost parameters were stable for 24 h at 4 °C, except for MCV, MCHC, CHCM and MPV. MCV and MPV increased after 8 h (

conclusionCBC measurements are reliable for 8 h when samples are stored at room temperature. The only parameter stable for 72 h at room temperature was Hb. Blood samples kept at 4 °C for up to 24 h are suitable for haematological analysis.

Indexed as

Blood cell countsHematology analyzerSample stability

Identifiers

PMID28856188
PMCPMC5574499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.