Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34069775›Full record

ReviewCells2021

Automated Analysis of Cerebrospinal Fluid Cells Using Commercially Available Blood Cell Analysis Devices-A Critical Appraisal.

Manfred Wick, Catharina C Gross, Hayrettin Tumani, Brigitte Wildemann, Martin Stangel, On Behalf Of The German Society Of Csf Diagnostics And Clinical Neurochemistry Dgln E V

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Manfred WickInstitute for Laboratory Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital, 81366 München, Germany.
Catharina C GrossDepartment of Neurology with Institute of Translational Neurology, University and University Hospital Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
Hayrettin TumaniCSF Laboratory, Department of Neurology, University of Ulm, 89081 Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1647-6201
Brigitte WildemannMolecular Neuroimmunology Group, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin StangelClinical Neuroimmunology and Neurochemistry, Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, 30559 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2504-5398
On Behalf Of The German Society Of Csf Diagnostics And Clinical Neurochemistry Dgln E V

Funding

NIH HHS R01-CA220329
6 · The paper itself

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

Blood CellsAutomation, LaboratoryBlood Cell CountCerebrospinal FluidEquipment DesignErythrocyte CountHumansLymphocyte CountPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of Resultsautomationcell differentiationcerebrospinal fluidCSF diagnostics

Identifiers

PMID34069775
PMCPMC8157290

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.