ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Horiba Micros ES 60 Blood Cell Analyzer in Blood Donor Eligibility: A Validation Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Eligibility criteria for blood donation require hemoglobin levels of ≥12.5 g/dL for women and ≥13.5 g/dL for men, and a platelet count of ≥180 × 109/L. Screening methods before donation should ensure high accuracy, precision, and ease in operation. We assessed the performance, precision, and repeatability of the Horiba Micros ES 60 (Horiba) compared to the Beckman Coulter DXH 800. Methods: Performance was compared by testing samples for each of the 11 devices across 6 sites in the Transfusion Service of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region, Italy. We measured precision by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV), concordance with ρ-Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and accuracy with F-tests. The intra-assay agreement was examined in the 11 devices, and repeatability was performed by using CV and the Kruskal−Wallis test. Results: The precision of Horiba was acceptable. Overall, ρ-Pearson’s coefficients indicated a strong correlation and positive relationship between all variables. The Bland−Altman plots showed that most of the differences lay within the limits of agreement. All CV were below the reference threshold for all the parameters. Finally, the Kruskal−Wallis test reported non-significant statistical differences for all parameters, except platelet count (p < 0.000). Conclusions: Horiba is adequate for routine pre-donation screening. The intra-assay agreement further demonstrates the accuracy of the device.
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.