Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A New Automated Technology for Cerebrospinal Fluid Cell Counts
by
Sandhaus, Linda M.
, Hinkle, Warren P.
, Dillman, Christine A.
, MacKenzie, Julie M.
, Hong, George
2017
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
A New Automated Technology for Cerebrospinal Fluid Cell Counts
by
Sandhaus, Linda M.
, Hinkle, Warren P.
, Dillman, Christine A.
, MacKenzie, Julie M.
, Hong, George
2017
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
A New Automated Technology for Cerebrospinal Fluid Cell Counts
Journal Article
A New Automated Technology for Cerebrospinal Fluid Cell Counts
2017
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of the study was to compare the performance of GloCyte (Advanced Instruments, Norwood, MA), a new semiautomated instrument for cerebrospinal fluid cell counting, with the manual hemocytometer method and the automated Sysmex XN (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) body fluid mode. The clinical impact of replacing the manual method with either automated method was determined.
Methods: Fifty-seven samples from 38 patients were analyzed by all three methods. Pearson correlation and Passing-Bablok regression were used to compare methods. Cytospin smears were reviewed on all samples, and clinical histories were obtained.
Results: There was a strong linear relationship between the manual and automated methods for WBC counts (R = 0.988 for GloCyte; R = 0.980 for Sysmex XN). Positive bias was absent or negligible for WBC counts less than 30/μL. GloCyte and manual RBC counts were equivalent. There were no samples for which replacement of manual WBC counts by automated counts would have changed the diagnosis. Both automated methods showed improved precision for WBC counts compared with the manual method.
Conclusions: Replacing manual WBC counts by GloCyte or Sysmex XN WBC counts would improve consistency of results without compromising diagnostic accuracy.
Publisher
Oxford University Press
MBRLCatalogueRelatedBooks
Related Items
Related Items
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.