Tweaking the ISLH Slide Making Criteria- Is it worth?
AbstractBACKGROUND: Every laboratory is trying its best to release the report in shortest possible time without compromising its quality. In this era, automated analyzer plays a very important role but manual microscopic review of stained blood film is mandatory to identify morphological abnormalities and to authenticate the results of the analyzer. The aim is to evaluate efficacy of our laboratory criteria using automated analyzer for manual peripheral smear review and to reduce the number of samples requiring microscopic blood film review METHODS-Retrospective study was done on total 526 patients whose samples were collected over a period of 36 months for complete blood count randomly from both inpatient and outpatient population. Based on our experience we have set our slide making criteria which are more stringent than ISLH. We have taken the study population which falls in the range between ISLH criteria and our lab criteria for study. We made comparisons of adapted ISLH criteria with study population laboratory criteria. RESULTS- Thus, after employing strict screening criteria the yield of true positives was significantly lower than internationally accepted ISLH criteria (Two sample test of proportion, p value < 0.001). CONCLUSION- The 41 rules of ISLH for slide review of automated CBC and WBC differential were compared with our study population lab criteria. There was significant reduction in microscopic smear review rate using ISLH criteria. False positive rates are high if cut offs are very narrow. Thus, it was found that tweaking ISLH criteria was an unnecessary exercise.
Barnes PW, McFadden SL, Machin SJ, Simson E; International Consensus Group for Hematology. The international consensus group for hematology review: Suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis. Lab Hematol 2005;11(2):83-90.
Gene Gulati, Jinming Song, Alina Dulau, Florea Jerald Gong, “Purpose and Criteria for blood smear scan, blood smear examination, and blood smear review”. 2013. Department of Pathology, Anatomy, and Cell Biology Faculty Papers. Paper 103. http://jdc.jefferson.edu/pacbfp/103
Gene L Gulati, Mohammad Alomari, William Kocher, Roland Schwarting; Jefferson Medical College and Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Criteria for Blood Smear Review. Laboratory Medicine 2002; 33(5):374-77
Samuel Ricardo Comar, Mariester Malvezzi, Ricardo Pasquini. Evaluation of criteria of manual blood smear review following automated complete blood counts in a large university hospital. Bras Hematol Hemoter 2017 oct-Dec;39(4):306-317
Katyayani Palur, Surekha U Arakeri Effectiveness of the International Consensus Group criteria for manual peripheral smear review. Indian J. Pathol. Microbiol. 2018(3); 61: 360-365.
Pratumvinit B, Wongkrajang P, Reesukumal K, Klinbua C, Niamjoy P. Validation and optimization of criteria for manual smear review following automated blood cell analysis in a large university hospital. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013;137: 408-14.
Comar SR, Malvezzi M, Pasquini R. Are the review criteria for automated complete blood counts of the international society of laboratory hematology suitable for all hematology laboratories? Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter 2014;36: 219-25.
El-Danasoury AS, Boshnak NH, El Monem RA. Validation of criteria for smear review following automated blood cell analysis in Ain Shams University. Int J Sci Res (Raipur) 2016;5: 484-93.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).