Optimization of Criteria for Manual Smear Review Following Automated Blood Cell Analysis

Authors

  • Deema Raslan Tishreen University
  • Tagrid Kaddar Tishreen University

Abstract

Introduction:The complete blood count (CBC) with differential leukocyte count is one of the most requested blood tests in medical laboratories. The CBC test is used to assess general health and to detect a wide range of disorders, including anemia and leukemia, and it measures the three blood cells: red blood cells (RBC, HCT, HB, erythrocytes indices), white blood cells (number and differential counts), and platelets.

Despite the high accuracyand scalability of automated blood analyzers, review of manual smears is still necessary to identify some morphological abnormalities that may be relatively unnoticeable with automated methods.

Automatic counts use Flags alert messages directing the necessity of conducting a blood smear examination for some samples.

The international consensus group suggested that each laboratory adopt its own standards for blood smear review, but many laboratories use factory settings, which is the case in our laboratory.

Each laboratory should have its own criteria that reduce the workload and limit the conduct of smears without affecting patient care, as manual smear review is labor-intensive, time-consuming and may not be necessary.

This research aims to compare international consensus group standards with our laboratory standards to improve it, to obtain better performance efficiency and to develop a systematic method that combines statistical analysis and clinical judgment to improve signal thresholds on automated counters.

Methods: The study sample includes patients attending Tishreen University Hospital in Lattakia. A venous blood sample was drawn on EDTA K3 tube, then CBC test was performed on Medonic M20 Basic device in the central laboratory at Tishreen University Hospital.A blood smearwas performedfor each sample with flag.

Results:  Compared with that of our laboratory criteria and factory settings criteria, the efficiency of the consensus group criteria was higher (41.47% versus 40.20 %, 39.24%, P < 0.05) respectively, the review rate was lower (38.65 % versus 50.92 %, 54.97 %, P < 0.05) respectively, and the false-positive rate was lower (18.55 % versus 28.32 %, 32.06%, P < 0.05) respectively. After optimizing the rules, we obtained an efficiency of 41.87 %, a review rateof49.81%, and a false-positive rate of 22.91%.

Conclusion: All laboratories should have itsown criteria for smear review. Criteria can be based on the consensus group criteria but should be verified before adoption or optimized to be suitable for different requirements.

Downloads

Published

2022-11-13

How to Cite

1.
رسلان د, تغريد قدّار. Optimization of Criteria for Manual Smear Review Following Automated Blood Cell Analysis. Tuj-hlth [Internet]. 2022Nov.13 [cited 2024Dec.21];44(5):389-98. Available from: https://journal.tishreen.edu.sy/index.php/hlthscnc/article/view/13192

Issue

Vol. 44 No. 5 (2022): Tishreen University Journal for Research and Scientific Studies - Health Sciences Series

Section

Master student researches

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The authors retain the copyright and grant the right to publish in the magazine for the first time with the transfer of the commercial right to Tishreen University Journal for Research and Scientific Studies - Health Sciences Series

 Under a CC BY- NC-SA 04 license that allows others to share the work with of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors can use a copy of their articles in their scientific activity, and on their scientific websites, provided that the place of publication is indicted in  Tishreen University Journal for Research and Scientific Studies - Health Sciences Series   .  The Readers have the right to send, print and subscribe to the initial version of the article, and the title of  Tishreen University Journal for Research and Scientific Studies - Health Sciences Series  Publisher

journal uses a CC BY-NC-SA license which mean

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
  •  
  • The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

 

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.