Establishment of improved review criteria for hematology analyzers in cancer hospitals

Abstract

Background Although hematologic review criteria for general hospitals have been established, they may be insufficient for cancer hospitals. This study aimed to establish the appropriate review criteria for hematology analyzers in cancer hospitals. Methods A total of 1003 samples from our hospital were randomly selected for blood smear preparation and microscopic review. The review criteria of the International Consensus Group for Hematology Review (ICGH) and Chinese consensus group were used to obtain the review, true‐negative (TN), true‐positive (TP), false‐negative (FN), and false‐positive (FP) rates, as well as the triggered rules. Our review criteria were established by comparing flag or numeric value information of TP and FP samples, adjusting rules to obtain better efficiency, a low slide review rate, and an acceptable FN rate. Results Overall, 197 (19.64%) samples showed positive smear findings. Compared to the ICGH criteria, the slide review rate of the newly established criteria declined from 51.25% to 39.28%, and the TP and TN rates increased from 17.85% and 46.06% to 23.13% and 55.83%, respectively. The FN rate of the newly established criteria was 3.69%. Another set of samples used to validate the newly established criteria yielded the review, FN, and FP rates as 33.49%, 1.86%, and 25.58%, respectively. Conclusion The newly established review criteria for hematology analyzers enabled the prompt identification, smear, and further verification of doubtful specimens, without a significant increase in the workload, thus improving the efficiency of the review process. This study provided data support for other cancer hospitals to establish review criteria.

Validation of the international consensus group criteria for slide review following automated complete blood count at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia

“…The FP rate in this study is much better than previous studies which reported FP rate ranging from 7.2% to 34% [14], [18], [15], [17]. Moreover, the review rate in the present study was found to be comparable with some previous studies which reported a review rate ranging from 29% to 51% [14], [15], [17], [19].…”

“…The comparison of our finding with previous published studies showed that the FN rate is higher than the previous findings, in which the rate range from 1.6 to 2.2 [14]- [15], but lower than studies which reported FN rate ranging from 7.37 to 9.25 [16], 19). The FP rate in this study is much better than previous studies which reported FP rate ranging from 7.2% to 34% [14], [18], [15], [17].…”

Validation of the International Consensus Group Criteria for Slide Review Following Automated Complete Blood Count at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia

“… 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 Moreover, the review rate in the present study was found to be comparable with some previous studies, which reported a review rate ranging from 29% to 51%. 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 …”

“…15,16,18,19 Moreover, the review rate in the present study was found to be comparable with some previous studies, which reported a review rate ranging from 29% to 51%. 15,16,19,20 This study has also compared the ICG criteria and physicians' triggered slide reviews. The physicians' triggered slide review practice appears to be arbitrary in the sense that no specific rule is set following automated CBC to indicate slide review.…”