• Users Online: 595
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 34-40

Mononuclear cell evaluation: A correlation study between manual and analyzer-based estimation


1 Department of Clinical Haematology and Centre for Stem Cell Therapy and Research, Army Hospital (Research and Referral), New Delhi, India
2 Department of Pathology, Command Hospital (EC), Kolkata, West Bengal, India
3 Former Director, National Jalma Institute of Leprosy and Other Mycobacterial Diseases-ICMR, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India
4 Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of School of Studies, Biochemistry, Jiwaji University, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India
5 Former DGMS Army (Director General Medical Sciences-Army), Gurgaon, Haryana, India
6 Military Hospital, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
7 Department of Mathematics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
8 Ex-DGMS-Army (Director General Medical Services), Bhagirathi Neotia Woman and Child Care Centre, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Prosenjit Ganguli
Department of Pathology, Command Hospital (EC), Kolkata, West Bengal
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_133_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: Bone marrow transplantation (BMT) is being routinely done at the Army Hospital for the past 15 years. Our experience with Stem Cell Transplantation and clinical trial on stem cell efficacy, our Centre had brought out the issue of trial deviates (<2 × 108 mononuclear cells [MNCs]) based on low yield of MNCs. PubMed search did not reveal any comparative data of analyzers versus manual counts. Thus, we decided to investigate the cause for the discrepancy calculated on 3-part and 5-part analyzers and manual estimation. This study has institutional relevance for hospitals involved in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, therapy, and research. Introduction: MNCs are widely being used as a morphologic analog of precursor cells in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and BMT units. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to evaluate the validity of the automated blood cell counter with gold standard of a manual count. Methods: The samples of peripheral blood (n = 80) and bone marrow (n = 80) were included in the study. Informed consent was obtained, and approval was taken from the IEC (Institutional Ethics Committee), Army Hospital Research and Referral, New Delhi, India. Results: Evaluation of MNC with 5-part hematology analyzer and gold standard manual count shows the correlation in the group of total leukocyte count samples: <4000, 4000–12,000, and 12,000–20,000 with no significant difference and >20,000 showing significant difference. Conclusion: The good correlation of 5-part hematology analyzer with manual gold standard method of MNC count is indicating equivalent performance. MNC can be performed by 5-part with nonsignificant difference and can be used as good as manual count.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed33    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded9    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal