Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31125378›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Compare the accuracy and precision of Coulter LH780, Mindray BC-6000 Plus, and Sysmex XN-9000 with the international reference flow cytometric method in platelet counting.

Yi Sun, Zuojian Hu, Zhili Huang, Huaping Chen, Shanzi Qin, Zhong Jianing, Siyuan Chen, Xue Qin, Yi Ye, Chengbin Wang

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

10 authors.

Yi SunDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zuojian HuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Zhili HuangDepartment of Blood Transfusion, Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Huaping ChenDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Shanzi QinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Zhong JianingDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Siyuan ChenDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Xue QinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Yi YeHematology Product Development Department, Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, China.
Chengbin WangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of different platelet counting methods (optical, impedance, fluorescence and hand counting) applied in different analysers by comparing with the international flow cytometric reference method (IRM).

methodsA total of 333 blood samples from different subgroups (168 cases with thrombocytopenia, 136 cases with normal platelet counts and 29 cases with thrombocytosis) were tested. Regarding IRM as the gold standard, we compared the accuracy and precision of different platelet count methods; i.e. LH780 (impedance), BC-6000 Plus (optical (O) and impedance (I)), Sysmex XN-9000 (optical (O), impedance (I), fluorescence (F)), and hand counting.

resultsSysmex XN-9000-F (r = 0.988) had the best correlation with IRM for thrombocytopenic samples; BC-6000 Plus-I (r = 0.966) was more relevant to IRM than any other method for samples with normal platelet counts. Correlation between Sysmex XN-9000-I (r = 0.960) and IRM was the highest among these methods for samples with thrombocytosis. For bias evaluation, the average bias of Sysmex XN-9000-F was -1.5 × 109/L (95% LA = -9.4 to +6.4) for samples with thrombocytopenia, compared with IRM. BC-6000 Plus-I had a small mean difference with IRM for samples with normal platelet counts or thrombocytosis. Moreover, all evaluated methods had acceptable sensitivity, specificity, and concordance rates as compared with IRM in the diagnosis of thrombocytopenia and thrombocytosis.

conclusionsPlatelet counting by Sysmex XN-9000-F is more accurate than other methods for thrombocytopenic samples. BC-6000 Plus-I has superior association and consistency for normal platelet counts. As for thrombocytosis patients, Sysmex XN-9000-I has the highest correlation with IRM while Sysmex XN-9000-O has the highest diagnosis efficacy.

Indexed as

Flow CytometryHumansPlatelet CountReference StandardsReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityThrombocytopeniaThrombocytosis

Identifiers

PMID31125378
PMCPMC6534315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.