Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The objective of this study was to perform a method comparison between the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count and the reclassification neutrophil count performed by trained laboratory technicians, and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the preclassification neutrophil count at clinical decision levels.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively identified patient samples through 2019-2022 in which the differential count was performed on Cellavision (n = 4,354). Data on sample characteristics and leukocyte- and differential counts was extracted from the electronic medical journal. For each sample, data containing the pre- and reclassification leukocyte classification, respectively, was extracted from the Cellavision software. Method comparison between the pre-and reclassification neutrophil count was performed using Bland Altman analysis. Diagnostic performance of the preclassification neutrophil count was evaluated according to four pre-specified categories of results with the reclassification as reference method.
UNASSIGNED: The median difference between the pre- and reclassification neutrophil count was 0.044 x 109/L. The preclassification neutrophil count categorised 95.6% of all samples correctly according to the four categories. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting neutrophilia > 7.00 x 109/L was 98.8%, 97.2%, 95.8%, and 99.2%, respectively. In samples with leukopenia (n = 543), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting severe neutropenia (< 0.50 x 109/L) was 97.7%, 99.1%, 98.6%, and 98.5%, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The diagnostic performance of the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count was satisfactory. The preclassification neutrophil count may be released to the electronic medical journal to improve turnaround time and benefit laboratory management.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively identified patient samples through 2019-2022 in which the differential count was performed on Cellavision (n = 4,354). Data on sample characteristics and leukocyte- and differential counts was extracted from the electronic medical journal. For each sample, data containing the pre- and reclassification leukocyte classification, respectively, was extracted from the Cellavision software. Method comparison between the pre-and reclassification neutrophil count was performed using Bland Altman analysis. Diagnostic performance of the preclassification neutrophil count was evaluated according to four pre-specified categories of results with the reclassification as reference method.
UNASSIGNED: The median difference between the pre- and reclassification neutrophil count was 0.044 x 109/L. The preclassification neutrophil count categorised 95.6% of all samples correctly according to the four categories. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting neutrophilia > 7.00 x 109/L was 98.8%, 97.2%, 95.8%, and 99.2%, respectively. In samples with leukopenia (n = 543), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting severe neutropenia (< 0.50 x 109/L) was 97.7%, 99.1%, 98.6%, and 98.5%, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The diagnostic performance of the CellaVision preclassification neutrophil count was satisfactory. The preclassification neutrophil count may be released to the electronic medical journal to improve turnaround time and benefit laboratory management.
摘要：
■这项研究的目的是在CellaVision预分类中性粒细胞计数和由训练有素的实验室技术人员进行的重新分类中性粒细胞计数之间进行方法比较，并评估预分类中性粒细胞计数在临床决策水平的诊断性能。
■我们回顾性鉴定了2019-2022年的患者样本，其中对Cellavision进行了分类计数（n=4,354）。从电子医学杂志中提取了有关样本特征以及白细胞和差异计数的数据。对于每个样本，包含白细胞分类前和重新分类的数据，分别,是从Cellavision软件中提取的.使用BlandAltman分析进行预分类和重新分类中性粒细胞计数之间的方法比较。根据四个预先指定的结果类别，以重新分类为参考方法，评估分类前中性粒细胞计数的诊断性能。
■中性粒细胞计数前和重新分类之间的中位数差异为0.044x109/L。分类前嗜中性粒细胞计数根据四个类别对所有样品的95.6％进行了正确分类。敏感性,特异性，检测中性粒细胞增多症>7.00×109/L的阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为98.8%,97.2%,95.8%,99.2%,分别。在白细胞减少症的样本中（n=543），灵敏度,特异性，检测严重中性粒细胞减少(<0.50×109/L)的阳性预测值和阴性预测值为97.7%,99.1%,98.6%,98.5%,分别。
■CellaVision预分类中性粒细胞计数的诊断性能令人满意。预分类嗜中性粒细胞计数可以发布到电子医学杂志以改善周转时间并有益于实验室管理。
■我们回顾性鉴定了2019-2022年的患者样本，其中对Cellavision进行了分类计数（n=4,354）。从电子医学杂志中提取了有关样本特征以及白细胞和差异计数的数据。对于每个样本，包含白细胞分类前和重新分类的数据，分别,是从Cellavision软件中提取的.使用BlandAltman分析进行预分类和重新分类中性粒细胞计数之间的方法比较。根据四个预先指定的结果类别，以重新分类为参考方法，评估分类前中性粒细胞计数的诊断性能。
■中性粒细胞计数前和重新分类之间的中位数差异为0.044x109/L。分类前嗜中性粒细胞计数根据四个类别对所有样品的95.6％进行了正确分类。敏感性,特异性，检测中性粒细胞增多症>7.00×109/L的阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为98.8%,97.2%,95.8%,99.2%,分别。在白细胞减少症的样本中（n=543），灵敏度,特异性，检测严重中性粒细胞减少(<0.50×109/L)的阳性预测值和阴性预测值为97.7%,99.1%,98.6%,98.5%,分别。
■CellaVision预分类中性粒细胞计数的诊断性能令人满意。预分类嗜中性粒细胞计数可以发布到电子医学杂志以改善周转时间并有益于实验室管理。
