Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35529242›Full record

ArticleRSC advances2019

Clinical training and validation of the LeukoScope: a low-cost, point-of-care device to perform white blood cell and neutrophil counts.

Catherine E Majors, Michal E Pawlowski, Daniel C Burke, Tomasz S Tkaczyk, Alyssa Rieber, Rebecca Richards-Kortum

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RSC advances, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine E MajorsDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University 6100 Main Street, MS-142 Houston TX 77005 USA rkortum@rice.edu +1 713 348 3823.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5741-5819
Michal E PawlowskiDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University 6100 Main Street, MS-142 Houston TX 77005 USA rkortum@rice.edu +1 713 348 3823.
Daniel C BurkeDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University 6100 Main Street, MS-142 Houston TX 77005 USA rkortum@rice.edu +1 713 348 3823.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6004-2507
Tomasz S TkaczykDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University 6100 Main Street, MS-142 Houston TX 77005 USA rkortum@rice.edu +1 713 348 3823.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7153-3312
Alyssa RieberDepartment of General Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX 77030 USA.
Rebecca Richards-KortumDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University 6100 Main Street, MS-142 Houston TX 77005 USA rkortum@rice.edu +1 713 348 3823.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2347-9467
Rice University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A white blood cell (WBC) count with partial differential is an important clinical laboratory test. However, current methods to perform a WBC count and differential are difficult to use at the point of care or too expensive for use in low-resource settings. To meet this need, we developed the LeukoScope: a low-cost system to measure a WBC and neutrophil count from a single drop of blood at the point of care. The LeukoScope is battery powered and has a sample-to-answer time of <5 minutes. A drop of blood from a finger stick is added to a LeukoScope sample cartridge where pre-dried acridine orange fluorescently stains WBCs. The cartridge is then inserted into the LeukoScope reader where a portable fluorescence microscope captures a color image of the sample, which is analyzed to report results to the user. The LeukoScope system was tested at the point of care using fingerprick samples collected from 105 general oncology patients in Houston, TX. Performance of the LeukoScope was compared to that of a HemoCue WBC DIFF performed using the same fingerprick sample; clinical laboratory analysis of a venous blood draw was used as the gold standard in all cases. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the LeukoScope and HemoCue WBC DIFF had similar accuracy for measurement of WBC and neutrophil counts as compared to the gold standard. Seven out of eight patients with abnormal WBC count values were correctly identified using the LeukoScope, while six out of eight were correctly identified using the HemoCue WBC DIFF. Five out of six patients with abnormal neutrophil counts were correctly identified using the LeukoScope, while six of six were correctly identified using the HemoCue WBC DIFF.

Identifiers

PMID35529242
PMCPMC9070624
OpenAlexW2970334363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.