ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2022
Digital Morphology Analyzer Sysmex DI-60 vs. Manual Counting for White Blood Cell Differentials in Leukopenic Samples: A Comparative Assessment of Risk and Turnaround Time.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contribution of XN-10 Sysmex Parameters in the Cytological Monitoring of Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
- A large dataset of bone marrow cells in myelodysplastic syndrome for classification systems.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Advantages of AI-based whole blood film scanning for blast detection in markedly leucopenic blood films.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- Real-World Application of Digital Morphology Analyzers: Practical Issues and Challenges in Clinical Laboratories.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Multi-Channel Cellytics for Rapid and Cost-Effective Monitoring of Leukocyte Activation.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted early screening of acute promyelocytic leukaemia in blood smears: a prospective evaluation of MC-100i.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Assessment of Single-Cycle M-Protein Mutated Vesicular Stomatitis Virus as a Safe and Immunogenic Mucosal Vaccine Platform for SARS-CoV-2 Immunogen Delivery.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Reliability of the DI-60 Digital Image Analyzer for Detecting Platelet Clumping and Obtaining Accurate Platelet Counts.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- A large multi-focus dataset for white blood cell classification.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Comparative Assessment of Risk and Turn-Around Time between Sequence-Based Typing and Next-Generation Sequencing for HLA Typing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Performance evaluation of the digital morphology analyser Sysmex DI-60 for white blood cell differentials in abnormal samples.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Performance Assessment of Sysmex DI-60: Is Digital Morphology Analyzer Reliable for White Blood Cell Differentials in Body Fluids?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital morphology (DM) analyzers are increasingly being used for white blood cell (WBC) differentials. We assessed the laboratory efficiency of the Sysmex DI-60 system (DI-60; Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) in comparison with manual counting in leukopenic samples.
methodsIn total, 40 peripheral blood smear samples were divided into normal, mild leukopenia, moderate leukopenia, and severe leukopenia groups based on WBC count. In each group, the risk and turnaround time (TAT) were compared between DI-60 and manual counting. Risk was determined by failure mode and effect analysis using the risk priority number (RPN) score, and TAT was recorded for the analytical phase.
resultsOverall, DI-60 showed a five-fold lower risk (70 vs. 350 RPN) and longer TAT than manual counting. In severe leukopenic samples, DI-60 showed a shorter TAT/slide and a remarkably lower cell count/slide than manual counting. In all samples, the TAT/cell for DI-60 was substantially longer than that for manual counting (DI-60 vs. manual: total, 1.8 vs. 1.0 sec; normal, 1.5 vs. 0.7 sec; mild leukopenia, 1.9 vs. 0.9 sec; moderate leukopenia, 1.8 vs. 1.0 sec; severe leukopenia, 28.8 vs. 19.0 sec).
conclusionsThis is the first comparative assessment of risk and TAT between DI-60 and manual counting in leukopenic samples. DI-60 decreases the laboratory risk and improves patient safety, but requires more time to count fewer cells, especially in severe leukopenic samples. DM analyzers should be applied selectively depending on the WBC count to optimize laboratory efficiency.
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.