ArticleScientific reports2025
Results of digitised blood smear differentiations by veterinary students using item analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Familiarisation with manual blood examination methods and the morphologies of leukocytes in peripheral blood contributes to routine veterinary practice. It enables veterinarians to verify automated analysis results and to examine blood cell morphology using the microscope. Third-year students therefore participated in an online module including 10 clinical cases of various mammal species with a haematological focus. Each case required the differentiation of 100 leukocytes using digitised cell images (= items) photographed from corresponding blood films. The study aims to provide insights into student difficulties with different leukocyte morphologies by calculating the Difficulty Index (DI) values. Out of 247 participating students, 96% completed the course in full, contributing 2197 differential white blood count (dWBC) responses for evaluation. The mean DI for all items (n = 1033) was 0.95 (± 0.09 SD), indicating overall low difficulty. Nucleated red blood cells (nRBC) (DI 0.98 ± 0.03 SD), segmented neutrophils (0.98 ± 0.07), and lymphocytes (0.97 ± 0.05) obtained high scores, whereas DIs for myelocytes (0.72 ± 0.14) and monocytes (0.82 ± 0.20) posed a greater challenge for the students to recognise these types of cells. Basophils, metamyelocytes, band neutrophils, platelets, and eosinophils ranged between DIs of 0.83 (± 0.12) to 0.94 (± 0.08). In contrast to hands-on microscopy, this digital format provided valuable training to gain routine in leukocyte differentiation and presentation, particularly of uncommon cell types. These should, however, be reliably distinguished by the examiner from the more common cell types, as they usually have a relatively high clinical significance even if they occur in small numbers. Nevertheless, the lack of dynamic manual adjustments during the microscopic examination emphasises the need for hands-on microscopy in combination with a digital format.
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.