ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Impact of Staining Methods and Human Factors on Accuracy of Manual Reticulocyte Enumeration.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Novel Peptidomimetic Cyclo-{E(I)-E(W)}Na (CP-88) with Hematopoietic Activity Sustained in Invasive and Oral Administration: Experimental and Preclinical Evaluation.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although peripheral blood reticulocyte enumeration reflects bone marrow functional integrity, which is important for differential diagnosis of hematological diseases, the factors affecting its accuracy have not been adequately addressed. Using 100 consecutive venous blood samples being processed with four supravital staining techniques [i.e., brilliant cresyl blue (BCB), new methylene blue (NMB), and BCB/NMB with Liu’s stain] for reticulocyte enumeration, two technologists (senior vs. junior) conducted microscopic counting. The results were compared with those obtained with an automated system (Sysmex XE-5000) that served as the standard. The aims of this study were to identify (1) the technique that gave the most reliable outcome, and (2) possible human factors (i.e., seniority, repeated counting) that may affect the counting results. Analysis showed least bias (i.e., deviation from automated counting) associated with BCB staining, followed by NMB. In addition, the senior observer exhibited a higher bias in counting compared with their junior counterpart. Repeated counting also correlated with a higher rate of bias. Nevertheless, inter-observer consistency was high (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.95) and inter-/intra-observer variations were non-significant (both p > 0.05). Our results supported the use of BCB stain for reticulocyte enumeration and the reliability of manual counting despite the involvement of human factors, which had negligible impacts on the final outcomes.
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.