ReviewInternational journal of laboratory hematology2026
Practical Considerations in the Implementation of Peripheral Smear Review in the Clinical Laboratory.
Review in International journal of laboratory hematology, 2026. 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.
- Improving laboratory criteria to reduce unnecessary peripheral blood smear reviews by pathologists.Laboratory medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Even in the era of modern automated hematology analyzers, visual peripheral blood smear (PBS) review remains an important component of peripheral blood evaluation in a subset of specimens. Despite published PBS review guidelines, including those issued 20 years ago by the International Consensus Group for Hematology Review (ICGHR), knowledge gaps remain regarding selection and implementation of PBS visual review criteria in clinical laboratories. The purpose of this article, developed by an international working group (the Peripheral Smear Review Working Group [PSRWG]), is to help bridge knowledge gaps by providing practical guidance and items for consideration. PBS review may be indicated for automated analyzer system flags, suspect flags, numerical/definitive flags, or as a component of delta checks. Examples, explanations, and suggestions for each of these categories are provided as are examples of flag modification. Validation of PBS review criteria is a multistep process that includes defining criteria for a positive finding, selecting specimens for study, choosing the slide review method, and determining the statistical approach. Pragmatic approaches and important items to consider are provided for each of these validation steps. PBS visual review workflow must be tailored to the needs of the clinical laboratory/institution. These needs may differ depending on the accrediting agency, laboratory/institutional infrastructure, and population served. A discussion of these variables is provided. In this article, we expand on the proposed ICGHR rules with a discussion of practical considerations in the implementation of PBS 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.