ArticleCytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry2019
Efficiency and Health Economic Evaluations of BD OneFlow™ Flow Cytometry Reagents for Diagnosing Chronic Lymphoid Leukemia.
Article in Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multicenter study evaluation of the ClearLLab 10C panels.Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry · 2021Article
- Efficiency and Health Economic Evaluations of BD OneFlow™ Flow Cytometry Reagents for Diagnosing Chronic Lymphoid Leukemia.Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
reason for the studyTo standardize the use of flow cytometry for classifying hematological malignancies and make the results reliable and reproducible across laboratories, the EuroFlow™ Consortium published a comprehensive specification of antibody-fluorochrome conjugates, standard protocols, and algorithms for analysis. The BD OneFlow™ system builds on, and further standardizes, the EuroFlow protocols. We aimed to assess the effects on safety, efficiency, and costs for laboratories of adopting the BD OneFlow reagent tubes (LST and B-CLPD T1) for diagnosing chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
methodsWe compared in-house laboratory processes and results with those using the LST and B-CLPD T1 reagent tubes with, and without, blood film morphology. Outcome measures included concordance in classification results, and efficiency within the laboratory, that is, resource usage, staff time, unwanted events, and cost-consequences.
resultsThere was 100% concordance between the classifications made with in-house flow cytometry and those with the BD OneFlow reagent tubes. Using BD OneFlow tubes required 13 hours less staff time per month (i.e. for 100 samples) than the in-house process. Sensitivity analyses explored the effects of uncertainties in the price of the BD OneFlow tubes and the prevalence of CLL and identified the thresholds at which laboratories might expect cost-savings from adopting the BD OneFlow system. Laboratory and clinical staff considered the BD OneFlow system to be safe and effective.
conclusionsLaboratories adopting the BD OneFlow system for classifying patients with suspected CLL can expect safe, efficient processes that can be cost saving if the discount on the list price, and prevalence of CLL (which will both vary between sites and countries), is within the thresholds suggested by the health economics sensitivity analysis. © 2019 International Clinical Cytometry Society.
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.