SummaryThe guideline writing group was selected to be representative of UK-based medical experts. MEDLINE was systematically searched for publications in English up to the Summer of 2010 using key words platelet, platelet function testing and platelet aggregometry. Relevant references generated from initial papers and published guidelines/reviews were also examined. Meeting abstracts were not included. The writing group produced the draft guideline, which was subsequently revised and agreed by consensus. Further comment was made by members of the Haemostasis and Thrombosis Task Force of the British Committee for Standards in Haematology. The guideline was then reviewed by a sounding board of approximately 40 UK haematologists, the British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH) and the British Society for Haematology

No abstract

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is defined by the presence of thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity in combination with the persistent presence of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies: lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies and/or anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies in medium to high titers. The management of thrombosis in patients with APS is a subject of controversy. This set of recommendations is the result of an effort to produce guidelines for therapy within a group of specialist physicians in Cardiology, Neurology, Hematology, Rheumatology and Internal Medicine, with a clinical and research focus on APS.

Automation of differentials is desirable for economic and time-saving reasons. Over the last 20 years, automated imaging processes have started to be introduced where stained blood films are scanned by a computer-driven microscope and leucocytes classified; however, early methods were slow and had difficulty in classifying abnormal cells. More recently the CellaVision DM96 (CellaVision AB, Lund, Sweden) has been introduced with added features such as continuous loading of slides and a faster throughput than previous instruments. The accuracy of CellaVision DM96 has been evaluated by comparing results to reference manual differentials. Results from different operators using the DM96 were compared with their own manual differential and to a 400-cell reference manual differential. Precision of the instrument was compared to the manual differential. The preclassification accuracy of the DM96 was 89.2%. Precision was similar to that of the 100-cell manual differential. The DM96 was faster than the manual method, even after reclassification by a laboratory scientist of any cells wrongly categorized by the instrument. The DM96 accuracy in morphological classification of leucocytes and red blood cells; depends upon both blood pathology and experience of the laboratory scientist using the instrument. For some cell types and operators, DM96 accuracy was better than the individual's 100 cell manual differential.