...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Cytometry, Part B. Clinical cytometry: the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology >Comparison of platelet counts by CellDyn sapphire (abbot diagnostics), LH750 (Beckman Coulter), ReaPanThrombo immunoplatelet method (ReaMetrix), and the international flow reference method, in thrombocytopenic blood samples
【24h】

Comparison of platelet counts by CellDyn sapphire (abbot diagnostics), LH750 (Beckman Coulter), ReaPanThrombo immunoplatelet method (ReaMetrix), and the international flow reference method, in thrombocytopenic blood samples

机译：血小板减少性血液样本中CellDyn蓝宝石（住持诊断），LH750（贝克曼库尔特），ReaPanThrombo免疫血小板方法（ReaMetrix）和国际流量参考方法的血小板计数比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background: We compared the international flow reference method (IRM) platelet counts with those obtained from CellDyn Sapphire (impedance and optical counts), LH750 (impedance counts), and the flowcytometry based ReaPanThrombo Immunoplatelet method (ReaMetrix). We further evaluated the degree of agreement of above methods with the IRM at the transfusion thresholds of 10 × 10~9 I~(-1) and 20 × 109 I~(-1). Methods: A total of 104 thrombocytopenic blood samples with platelet count of <50 × 10~9 I~(-1) were selected for the study. All samples were tested in parallel by various methods within 6 h of blood collection. Results: For bias estimation, a Bland-Altman analysis was done by taking the IRM as the standard method. The bias for CDS-I counts was +6.505 × 10 ~9 I~(-1) (95% LA -2.110 to +15.122), for CDS-O counts the bias was -3.779 × 10~9 I~(-1) (95% LA -8.950 to +1.392), for LH750 the bias was +0.111 × 10~9 I~(-1) (95% LA -5.862 to +6.084) and that for ReaMetrix was -1.602 × 10~9 I~(-1) (95% LA -7.400 to +4.194). The LH750 had the least average bias and it overestimated platelet counts marginally. The ReaMetrix method showed the highest degree of agreement with the IRM, at both the threshold points with a K value of 0.960 (threshold ≤ 10 × 10~9 I~(-1)) and 0.923 (threshold ≤ 20 × 10~9 I~(-1)). Conclusions: Impedance platelet counts from LH750 were more accurate than optical methods in thrombocytopenic patients. ReaMetrix immunoplatelet counts show the maximum degree of agreement with the IRM at clinically relevant transfusion thresholds. We conclude that as current platelet transfusion thresholds are based on results of automated hematology analyzer methods, the true thresholds may be determined using the IRM and CD41/61 based single-platform immunoplatelet methods.
机译：背景：我们将国际流动参考方法（IRM）血小板计数与从CellDyn蓝宝石（阻抗和光学计数），LH750（阻抗计数）以及基于流式细胞仪的ReaPanThrombo免疫血小板方法（ReaMetrix）获得的血小板计数进行了比较。我们进一步评估了上述方法与IRM在输血阈值10×10〜9 I〜（-1）和20×109 I〜（-1）时的一致性程度。方法：选择104例血小板计数<50×10〜9 I〜（-1）的血小板减少症患者。在采血后6小时内，通过各种方法并行测试所有样品。结果：为了进行偏差估计，以IRM为标准方法进行了Bland-Altman分析。 CDS-I计数的偏差为+6.505×10〜9 I〜（-1）（95％LA -2.110至+15.122），CDS-O计数的偏差为-3.779×10〜9 I〜（-1 ）（95％LA -8.950至+1.392），对于LH750，偏差为+0.111×10〜9 I〜（-1）（95％LA -5.862至+6.084），而ReaMetrix的偏差为-1.602×10〜9 I〜（-1）（95％LA -7.400至+4.194）。 LH750的平均偏差最小，它略微高估了血小板计数。 ReaMetrix方法显示与IRM的一致性最高，在两个阈值点的K值分别为0.960（阈值≤10×10〜9 I〜（-1））和0.923（阈值≤20×10〜9 I） 〜（-1））。结论：在血小板减少症患者中，LH750的阻抗血小板计数比光学方法更准确。 ReaMetrix免疫血小板计数在临床相关的输血阈值下显示出与IRM的最大一致程度。我们得出的结论是，由于当前的血小板输注阈值是基于自动血液分析仪方法的结果，因此可以使用基于IRM和CD41 / 61的单平台免疫血小板方法来确定真实的阈值。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号