ArticleInternational journal of laboratory hematology2025
Definition of Significant Platelet Clumping: Should We Review All Samples With a Platelet Clumping Flag From Automated Hematology Analyzer?
Article in International journal of laboratory hematology, 2025. 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.
- Efficacy and Safety of Vortexing as a Practical Solution for Resolving Platelet Clumping in hematology laboratories.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
- A challenging laboratory case due to inappropriate sampling through an antiseptic barrier cap.Biochemia medica · 2026Article
- Pseudothrombocytopenia and other conditions associated with spuriously low platelet counts.Haematologica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to determine a definition for significant platelet clumping (PC) and evaluate the performance of the Sysmex XN instrument for detecting platelet clumps.
methodsFor part 1, 372 specimens with a 'PLT_clump?' flag in XN-9000 were classified into five groups according to the average number of PCs. We compared the initial platelet count (measured by XN-9000 using impedance method) and corrected platelet count (counted optically or re-analyzed by XN-9000 using vortexed or re-collected sample) of each group. For part 2, 1000 specimens with a PC flag divided into three subgroups {group N (PC = 0), Y (PC ≥ 1), and Z (microscopic fibrin clot)} and additional two groups {group S (PC(+) specimens without any flag and with flags of other categories) and group NC (negative control)} were collected. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity of PC detection of XN-9000 were obtained and the platelet counts and four indices (PDW, MPV, P_LCR, and PCT) of groups NC, N, Y, Z, and S were compared to detect PC more precisely.
resultsIn part 1, all groups showed significant difference between the initial and corrected platelet counts. In part 2, PPV, NPV, prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity were 41.5%, 56.5%, 43.4%, 2.18%, and 98.3%, respectively. The platelet counts and four indices showed statistical differences for detecting PCs, and especially PDW and P_LCR were significantly smaller in group Z than group N or Y.
conclusionsWe suggest the definition of significant PC by the presence of at least three platelets. In addition, utilizing platelet-related indices should be developed to improve the efficiency of the PC detection.
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.