ArticlePloS one2021
Point-of-care microvolume cytometer measures platelet counts with high accuracy from capillary blood.
Article in PloS one, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single drop cytometry onboard the International Space Station.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Last Trends in Point-of-Care (POC) Diagnostics for the Management of Hematological Indices in Home Care Patients.Biosensors · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care (PoC) testing of platelet count (PLT) provides real-time data for rapid decision making. The goal of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and precision of platelet counting using a new microvolume (8 μL), absolute counting, 1.5 kg cytometry-based blood analyzer, the rHEALTH ONE (rHEALTH) in comparison with the International Society of Laboratory Hematology (ISLH) platelet method, which uses a cytometer and an impedance analyzer.
methodsInclusion eligibility were healthy adults (M/F) ages 18-80 for donation of fingerprick and venous blood samples. Samples were from a random N = 31 volunteers from a single U.S. site. Samples were serially diluted to test thrombocytopenic ranges. Interfering substances and conditions were tested, including RBC fragments, platelet fragments, cholesterol, triglycerides, lipids, anti-platelet antibodies, and temperature.
resultsThe concordance between the rHEALTH and ISLH methods had a slope = 1.030 and R2 = 0.9684. The rHEALTH method showed a correlation between capillary and venous blood samples (slope = 0.9514 and R2 = 0.9684). Certain interferents changed platelet recovery: RBC fragments and anti-platelet antibodies with the ISLH method; platelet fragments and anti-platelet antibodies on the rHEALTH; and RBC fragments, platelets fragments, triglycerides and LDL on the clinical impedance analyzer. The rHEALTH's precision ranged from 3.1-8.0%, and the ISLH from 1.0-10.5%.
conclusionsThe rHEALTH method provides similar results with the reference method and good correlation between adult capillary and venous blood samples. This demonstrates the ability of the rHEALTH to provide point-of-care assessment of normal and thrombocytopenic platelet counts from fingerprick blood with high precision and limited interferences.
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.