SynthesisInternational journal of laboratory hematology2026
Performance of Automated Hematology Analyzer Criteria in Detecting Peripheral Blood Smear Abnormalities: A Systematic Literature Review.
Synthesis 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. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCriteria for visual examination of stained peripheral blood smear (PBS) differ among institutions in the United States and internationally. In an effort to standardize review criteria, the International Consensus Group for Hematology Review (ICGHR) proposed in 2005 a consensus list of rules for CBC findings that should trigger a review of automated cell counter results and potentially lead to further testing or blood smear review. The primary aim of this paper is to report on the published literature in the past 20 years regarding PBS review criteria and their ability to identify relevant peripheral blood abnormalities.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of the published literature from 2005 to 2025 to investigate and summarize PBS review criteria and performance in the context of automated hematology analyzers in clinical laboratories.
resultsOf 5351 citations, 68 studies met our search criteria. These studies included 22 countries and all major hematology analyzer manufacturers. Marked variability was observed in study populations, analyzer flagging criteria, details of PBS visual review, definitions of a "positive" smear, and approaches to statistical data analysis. Across studies, the blast flag sensitivity ranged from 18% to 100% while the blast flag specificity ranged from 17% to 100%. Wide ranges in sensitivity/specificity were also seen for atypical and/or abnormal lymphocyte flags across studies. For studies analyzing the same patient population, less striking variation was seen across instruments.
conclusionsThis systematic review provides a 20-year overview of the literature, highlighting significant variability in PBS review criteria, dependence on study design and hematology analyzer, and the importance of developing harmonized evidence-based guidelines.
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.