ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Evaluation of point-of-care complete blood count and C-reactive protein testing for routine use in a pediatric emergency department.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care testing (POCT) of complete blood count (CBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) may support rapid decision-making in pediatric emergency care. We evaluated the performance of the Horiba Microsemi analyzer operated by clinical staff in the emergency department (ED) of V. Buzzi Children's Hospital (Milan, Italy) compared with laboratory testing.
methodsAn unselected cohort of 195 patients (108 males and 87 females; median age 6 years, IQR 2-11 years) admitted to the ED was enrolled over 6 weeks to reflect routine clinical practice. Capillary and venous samples were analyzed using the Horiba Microsemi CRP LC-767G and compared with simultaneously collected venous samples analyzed by laboratory reference systems (Sysmex XN-9000 for CBC and Abbott Alinity for CRP). Method comparison was performed using MedCalc Statistical Software, applying Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Accuracy was assessed by comparing mean bias with European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) biological variation-based performance specifications.
resultsStrong correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient, ρ ≥ 0.90) between POCT (capillary and venous) and laboratory measurements was observed for mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), and C-reactive protein (CRP). For lymphocyte (LYMPH) and granulocyte (GRAN) counts, a strong correlation was observed only in venous samples. Moderate correlation (0.75 ≤ ρ < 0.90) was observed for white blood cells (WBC) and platelets (PLT) in both matrices, for hemoglobin (HGB) in venous samples only, and for lymphocytes (LYMPH) and granulocytes (GRAN) in capillary samples. Poor correlation (ρ < 0.75) was found for red blood cells (RBC), hematocrit (HCT), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), and monocytes (MONO) in both matrices, and for HGB in capillary samples. According to EFLM specifications, MCHC, LYMPH, and CRP met the predefined desirable performance specifications in both matrices, whereas WBC and GRAN met these criteria only in venous POCT samples. Significant bias was observed for RBC parameters and PLT.
conclusionCautious interpretation is warranted for WBC, and particularly for RBC parameters and PLT. The observed data dispersion may reflect pre-analytical variability, potentially affecting the precision of the findings and the applicability of POCT in routine emergency practice, especially for capillary samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42711586What 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.