ReviewCells2021
Automated Analysis of Cerebrospinal Fluid Cells Using Commercially Available Blood Cell Analysis Devices-A Critical Appraisal.
Review in Cells, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Technological features of blast identification in the cerebrospinal fluid: A systematic review of flow cytometry and laboratory haematology methods.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2022Pooled it
- CSF Leukocytes Transiently Increase Before Onset of Huntington Disease in Association With a Stage-Specific CSF Cytokine/Chemokine Pattern.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2026Observational
- Automated Cell Counting in CSF Diagnostics Revisited-Friend or Foe?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reactive Pleocytosis After Repeated Lumbar Puncture-Implications for Clinical Practice.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Overcoming missed diagnoses of primary central nervous system Lymphoma-The key role of cerebrospinal fluid cytology: a case report.Diagnostic pathology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Microscanner C3 for Automated Cell Counting in Cerebrospinal Fluid Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Neonatal cerebrospinal fluid cytology: Preanalytical and analytical phase considerations.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- Basic CSF parameters and MRZ reaction help in differentiating MOG antibody-associated autoimmune disease versus multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Role and Relevance of Cerebrospinal Fluid Cells in Diagnostics and Research: State-of-the-Art and Underutilized Opportunities.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The analysis of cells in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is a routine procedure that is usually performed manually using the Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber and cell microscopy for cell counting and differentiation. In order to reduce the requirement for manual assessment, automated analyses by devices mainly used for blood cell analysis have been also used for CSF samples. Here, we summarize the current state of investigations using these automated devices and critically review their limitations. Despite technical improvements, the lower limit for reliable leukocyte counts in the CSF is still at approximately 20 cells/µL, to be validated depending on the device. Since the critical range for clinical decisions is in the range of 5-30 cells/µL this implies that cell numbers < 30/µL require a manual confirmation. Moreover, the lower limit of reliable erythrocyte detection by automated devices is at approximately 1000/µL. However, even low erythrocyte numbers may be of clinical importance. In contrast, heavily hemorrhagic samples from neurosurgery may be counted automatically at an acceptable precision more quickly. Finally, cell differentiation by automated devices provides only a rough orientation for lymphocytes, granulocytes and monocytes. Other diagnostically important cell types such as tumor cells, siderophages, blasts and others are not reliably detected. Thus, although the automation may give a gross estimate sufficient for the emergency room situation, each CSF requires a manual microscopy for cytological evaluation for the final report. In conclusion, although automated analysis of CSF cells may provide a first orientation of the cell profile in an individual sample, an additional manual cell count and a microscopic cytology are still required and represent the gold standard.
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.