ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2021
Establishment of improved review criteria for hematology analyzers in cancer hospitals.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the International Consensus Group Criteria for Slide Review Following Automated Complete Blood Count at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia.Journal of blood medicine · 2023Article
- Establishment of improved review criteria for hematology analyzers in cancer hospitals.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough hematologic review criteria for general hospitals have been established, they may be insufficient for cancer hospitals. This study aimed to establish the appropriate review criteria for hematology analyzers in cancer hospitals.
methodsA total of 1003 samples from our hospital were randomly selected for blood smear preparation and microscopic review. The review criteria of the International Consensus Group for Hematology Review (ICGH) and Chinese consensus group were used to obtain the review, true-negative (TN), true-positive (TP), false-negative (FN), and false-positive (FP) rates, as well as the triggered rules. Our review criteria were established by comparing flag or numeric value information of TP and FP samples, adjusting rules to obtain better efficiency, a low slide review rate, and an acceptable FN rate.
resultsOverall, 197 (19.64%) samples showed positive smear findings. Compared to the ICGH criteria, the slide review rate of the newly established criteria declined from 51.25% to 39.28%, and the TP and TN rates increased from 17.85% and 46.06% to 23.13% and 55.83%, respectively. The FN rate of the newly established criteria was 3.69%. Another set of samples used to validate the newly established criteria yielded the review, FN, and FP rates as 33.49%, 1.86%, and 25.58%, respectively.
conclusionThe newly established review criteria for hematology analyzers enabled the prompt identification, smear, and further verification of doubtful specimens, without a significant increase in the workload, thus improving the efficiency of the review process. This study provided data support for other cancer hospitals to establish review criteria.
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.