ArticleBiochemia medica2026
Automated Aerospray Hematology PRO staining shows good agreement for mature leukocytes but limited diagnostic reliability for immature forms: comparison with manual May-Grünwald-Giemsa staining.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Microscopic examination of peripheral blood smears remains essential step in hematology diagnostics, requiring reliable and standardized staining techniques. This study evaluated performance of Aerospray Hematology PRO Slide Stainer (ELITechGroup Inc., Utah, USA) in comparison with manual May-Grünwald-Giemsa (MGG) technique. Materials and methods: Forty K Results: Precision results met acceptable criteria for all WBC subpopulations. No significant differences were observed for mature WBCs: intercept - 4.0 (- 13.8 to 3.0) slope 1.0 (0.9 to 1.2) for neutrophils; intercept - 1.5 (- 9.3 to 1.9), slope 1.1 (0.9 to 1.3) for lymphocytes; intercept 1.0 (- 2.0 to 1.6), slope 1.0 (0.9 to 1.4) for monocytes; intercept 0.0 (- 1.5 to 1.3), slope 1.0 (0.5 to 1.7) for eosinophils. Staining of mature WBCs was comparable, showing no significant differences in nuclear or cytoplasmic morphology. While immature WBCs, particularly myelocytes, displayed fewer granules and lighter nuclear staining with Aerospray. Diagnostic accuracy was unsatisfactory for classifying ATYPS (Se = 73%, Sp = 60%), IG (Se = 63%, Sp = 50%) and blasts (Se = 63%, Sp = 100%), whereas erythrocyte and platelet morphology were unaffected. Conclusions: Aerospray Hematology PRO is suitable for mature WBC populations. However, manual MGG staining remains necessary for reliable evaluation of immature and pathological cells.
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.