ArticlePloS one2023
Analytical performance of the digital morphology analyzer Sysmex DI-60 for body fluid cell differential counts.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Application of Digital Morphology Analyzers: Practical Issues and Challenges in Clinical Laboratories.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A large multi-focus dataset for white blood cell classification.Scientific data · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSysmex DI-60 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) is a digital morphology (DM) analyzer widely used in clinical laboratories and supports body fluid (BF) applications. We evaluated analytical performance of DI-60 compared with XN-350 (Sysmex) and manual counting for BF cell differential counts.
methodsA total of 213 BF samples were collected (47 cerebrospinal fluid [CSF], 80 pleural fluid, and 86 ascites samples). The analytical performance of DI-60 for BF cell differential counts was evaluated based on sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and agreement. BF cell differential counts obtained by DI-60 were compared with those obtained by XN-350 and manual counting.
resultsThe overall sensitivity was high for neutrophils, lymphocytes, and macrophages (range, 83.1-99.4%). The overall specificity and overall accuracy were high for all cell types (range, 95.3-99.7% and 94.3-99.3%, respectively). The agreement between DI-60 pre-classification and verification was strong (κ = 0.89). The absolute mean differences between DI-60 verification and XN-350 ranged from 0.26 to 11.05, and differences between DI-60 verification and manual counting ranged from 0.01 to 4.76.
conclusionsThis is the first study to evaluate the performance of DI-60 compared with XN-350 and manual counting for BF cell differential counts. DI-60 showed reliable performance with CSF, pleural fluid, and ascites samples. For BF cell differential counts, DI-60 may be a better option than XN-350 and could be used for screening purposes in understaffed laboratories. To improve the hematology workflow for BF cell differential counting, the DM analyzer needs to be optimized by taking into account the laboratory situation and unmet needs, and the clinical laboratory needs to establish criteria for verification and manual slide review.
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.