International journal of laboratory hematology · 2022
Harmonizing platelet function analyzer testing and reporting in a large laboratory network.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Favaloro Emmanuel J, Mohammed Soma, Vong Ronny, Chapman Kent, Kershaw Geoffrey, Just Sarah, Connelly Lynne, Ryan Michael, Zebeljan Diane, Brighton Timothy, Pasalic Leonardo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The platelet function analyzer (PFA) is a popular platelet function screening instrument, highly sensitive to von Willebrand disease (VWD) and to aspirin therapy, with moderate sensitivity to defects in platelet function and/or deficiencies in platelet number. There are two models, the original PFA-100 and the contemporary PFA-200. Normal reference ranges (NRRs) provided by the manufacturer are the same for both models, instead being based on the type of test cartridge, for which there are two main ones: collagen/epinephrine (C/Epi) and collagen/adenosine diphosphate (C/ADP).
METHODS: Comparative evaluations of PFA testing and reporting in six different sites of a large pathology network, aiming to harmonize NRRs and test reporting across all network sites. A separate comparative study of testing a range of samples (n > 150) on a PFA-100 versus that on a PFA-200. Review of contemporary literature.
RESULTS: Each site was identified to have a different reporting NRR, which after consolidating data permitted establishment of an agreed harmonized NRR for use across the network (C/Epi: 90-160; C/ADP: 70-124; based on n > 180). Similarly, each site reported and interpreted results in different ways, and after discussion and consolidation, a harmonized approach to interpretation and reporting was achieved. The separate comparative study of PFA-100 versus PFA-200 testing confirmed instrument equivalence.
CONCLUSION: We achieved harmonized NRRs and reporting for PFA testing across a large pathology network. Our approach may be useful for other laboratory networks wishing to harmonize PFA testing.
METHODS: Comparative evaluations of PFA testing and reporting in six different sites of a large pathology network, aiming to harmonize NRRs and test reporting across all network sites. A separate comparative study of testing a range of samples (n > 150) on a PFA-100 versus that on a PFA-200. Review of contemporary literature.
RESULTS: Each site was identified to have a different reporting NRR, which after consolidating data permitted establishment of an agreed harmonized NRR for use across the network (C/Epi: 90-160; C/ADP: 70-124; based on n > 180). Similarly, each site reported and interpreted results in different ways, and after discussion and consolidation, a harmonized approach to interpretation and reporting was achieved. The separate comparative study of PFA-100 versus PFA-200 testing confirmed instrument equivalence.
CONCLUSION: We achieved harmonized NRRs and reporting for PFA testing across a large pathology network. Our approach may be useful for other laboratory networks wishing to harmonize PFA testing.