Are the review criteria for automated complete blood counts of the International Society of Laboratory Hematology suitable for all hematology laboratories?

Abstract

Objectiveto verify whether the review criteria for automated blood counts suggested by the International Consensus Group for Hematology Review of the International Society for Laboratory Hematology are suitable for the Hematology Laboratory of Hospital de Clinicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná.Methodsinitially, the review criteria of the International Society for Laboratory Hematology were adapted due to limitations in the Institution's electronic hospital records and interfacing systems. The adapted review criteria were tested using 1977 samples. After this first assessment, an additional 180 inpatient samples were analyzed to evaluate the screening criteria of the review criteria in conjunction with positive smear findings established by the institution. The performance of the review criteria was verified by determining false positive, false negative, true positive and true negative rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, microscopic review rate and efficiency.Resultsinitial analysis showed false negatives = 6.73%, false positives = 23.27%, microscopic review rate = 46.03% and efficiency = 70.0%. An evaluation of the screening criteria adapted from the review criteria together with the positive smear findings of the institution showed false negatives = 15.5%, false positives = 10.5%, microscopic review rate = 37.3% and efficiency = 73.8%. In both situations the safety limit (false negative <5%) recommended by the review criteria was exceeded.Conclusionsthe review criteria adapted from the International Society for Laboratory Hematology are neither suitable nor safe for use in the hematology laboratory of the Hospital de Clinicas. This implies a need to develop and validate institution-specific review criteria in order to decrease false negative results to an acceptable and safe rate for patients.

Surveillance of Myelodysplastic Syndrome via Migration Analyses of Blood Neutrophils: A Potential Prognostic Tool

“…The following can be used for comparison: According to the adapted criteria from the International Society for Laboratory Hematology, the WBC count can range between 4 3 10 3 /ml and 30 3 10 3 /ml (7.5-fold difference) before further analyses in terms of leukopenia or leukocytosis are considered. Neutrophil frequencies can range between 1 3 10 3 /ml and 20 3 10 3 /ml (20-fold difference) (38).…”

Comparison of hematological parameters with peripheral smear in anemia

“…This will ensure proper and appropriate treatment and patient care. 17 Our study found that the microscopic examination of peripheral blood smear is gold standard in the diagnosis of various types of anemia. Similarly Farah et al [18] and Lantis et al [19] in their study also found that the automated hematology analyzers were appropriate for screening purposes because it increases the turnaround time and reduces the labor cost.…”

Automated nucleated red blood cell count using the Mindray BC‐6800 hematology analyzer

“…To discriminate positive samples with the Mindray BC‐6800 analyzer among the initial NRBC‐flagged samples with a subsequent report of an absolute NRBC count >0.02 × 10 9 /L or an NRBC percentage >0.01, a NRBC cutoff of ≥1% was defined as the positive threshold, in accordance with a set of 41 review criteria for automated CBCs developed by the Internal Society of Laboratory Hematology (ISLH) . No false‐negatives were observed at this threshold for either FC or MM (80/80 samples), while a high false‐negative rate (70%, 13/20 samples) was noted for the MM method in samples with NRBCs < 1%.…”