ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Performance Assessment of Sysmex DI-60: Is Digital Morphology Analyzer Reliable for White Blood Cell Differentials in Body Fluids?
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Application of Digital Morphology Analyzers: Practical Issues and Challenges in Clinical Laboratories.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have evaluated digital morphology (DM) analyzers on body fluids (BF). We evaluated the performance of a DM analyzer, Sysmex DI-60 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) for white blood cell (WBC) differentials in BF samples.
methodsIn five BF samples (two pleural fluids and three ascites) containing a single, dominant cell type (>80%, neutrophils, lymphocytes, macrophages, abnormal lymphocytes, and malignant cells in each sample), we evaluated the precision of the DI-60 and compared the WBC differentials and turnaround times (TAT) between DI-60 and manual counting.
resultsThe precision of the DI-60 pre-classification and verification was excellent (%CV, 0.01-3.16%). After verification, the DI-60 showed high sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency (ranges: 90.8-98.1%, 96.8-97.9%, and 92.5-98.0%, respectively) for the dominant cell types in neutrophil- and lymphocyte-dominant samples. For all samples, the DI-60 and manual counting showed high correlations for major cell types (neutrophils, lymphocytes, macrophages, and others, r = 0.72 to 0.94) after verification. The agreement between the pre-classification and verification of the DI-60 was strong in the neutrophil-dominant sample (κ = 0.81). The DI-60 showed a significantly longer TAT (min: s) than manual counting for all samples (median TAT/slide: 6:28 vs. 1:53,
conclusionsThe DI-60 may provide reliable data in neutrophil- and lymphocyte-dominant BF samples. However, it may require longer times and higher workloads for WBC differentials especially in BF samples containing atypical cells. Further improvement would be needed before applying DM analyzers for routine clinical practice in BF analysis.
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.