Ann Lab Med.  2013 Jan;33(1):1-7. 10.3343/alm.2013.33.1.1.

Purpose and Criteria for Blood Smear Scan, Blood Smear Examination, and Blood Smear Review

• Gulati G
• Song J
• Florea AD
• Gong J

• KMID: 1781291
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2013.33.1.1

Abstract

A microscopic examination of an appropriately prepared and well-stained blood smear by a knowledgeable laboratory professional is necessary and clinically useful in a number of circumstances and for a variety of reasons. In this article, an attempt is made to delineate the purpose and criteria for blood smear examination in a variety of circumstances that are encountered in everyday laboratory hematology practice. A blood smear scan serves to at least (a) verify the flagged automated hematology results and (b) determine if a manual differential leukocyte count needs to be performed. Blood smear examination/manual differential leukocyte count with complete blood count (CBC) provides the complete hematologic picture of the case, at least from the morphologic standpoint. Blood smear review with or without interpretation serves to ensure that no clinically significant finding is missed, besides providing diagnosis or diagnostic clue(s), particularly if and when interpreted by a physician.

Keyword

Blood smear scan; Blood smear examination; Blood smear review

MeSH Terms

Blood Cell Count
Hematologic Tests/*methods
Humans
Leukocyte Count
Leukocytes/cytology
Medical Laboratory Personnel/standards

Reference

1. Carr J, Geesaman S, Czader M. Performance evaluation of the new Unicel DxH 800 Coulter Cellular Analysis system in a large hospital setting. Lab Med. 2012; 43:157–163.

2. Kang SH, Kim HK, Ham CK, Lee DS, Cho HI. Comparison of four hematology analyzers, Cell-DYN Sapphire, Advia 120, Coulter LH750, and Sysmex XE-2100, in terms of clinical usefulness. Int J Lab Hematol. 2008; 30:480–486. PMID: 19062362.

3. Bourner G, Dhaliwal J, Sumner J. Performance evaluation of the latest fully automated hematology analyzers in a large commercial laboratory setting: A 4-way, side-by-side study. Lab Hematol. 2005; 11:285–297. PMID: 16475476.

4. Barnes PW. Comparison of performance characteristics between first- and third-generation hematology systems. Lab Hematol. 2005; 11:298–301. PMID: 16475477.

5. Johnson M, Samuels C, Jozsa N, Gorney K. Three-way evaluation of high-throughput hematology analyzers- Beckman Coulter LH 750, Abbott Cell-Dyn 4000, and Sysmex XE-2100. Lab Hematol. 2002; 8:230–238.

6. Peterson P, McNeill S, Gulati G. Kottke-Marchant K, Davis BH, editors. Cellular morphologic analysis of peripheral blood. Laboratory hematology practice. 2012. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell;p. 10–25.

7. Bain BJ. Diagnosis from the blood smear. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353:498–507. PMID: 16079373.

8. Shattil SJ. A (blood) smear campaign. Blood. 2003; 101:2453. PMID: 12642341.

9. Gulati GL, Hyun BH. Blood smear examination. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 1994; 8:631–650. PMID: 7525531.

10. International Consensus Group for Hematology Review. International Society for Laboratory Hematology. Suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis. 2004. Available at www.ISLH.org.

11. Zandecki M, Genevieve F, Gérard J, Godon A. Kottke-Marchant K, Davis BH, editors. Spurious counts and spurious results on hematology analyzers: platelets. Laboratory hematology practice. 2012. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell;p. 66–78.

12. Zandecki M, Genevieve F, Gérard J, Godon A. Kottke-Marchant K, Davis BH, editors. Spurious counts and spurious results on hematology analyzers: white blood cells, red blood cells, hemoglobin, red cell indices, and reticulocytes. Laboratory hematology practice. 2012. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell;p. 79–95.

13. Kakkar N. Spurious rise in the automated platelet count because of bacteria. J Clin Pathol. 2004; 57:1096–1097. PMID: 15452168.

14. Kim HR, Park BR, Lee MK. Effects of bacteria and yeast on WBC counting in three automated hematology counters. Ann Hematol. 2008; 87:557–562. PMID: 18301891.

15. Latif S, Veillon DM, Brown D, Kaltenbach J, Curry S, Linscott AJ, et al. Spurious automated platelet count enumeration of yeast forms as platelets by the Cell-DYN 4000. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003; 120:882–885. PMID: 14671977.

16. Branda JA, Kratz A. Effects of yeast on automated cell counting. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 126:248–254. PMID: 16891201.

17. Gulati GL, Asselta A, Chen C. Using a vortex to disaggregate platelet clumping. Lab Med. 1997; 28:665–667.

18. Gulati G, editor. Blood cell morphology grading guide. 2009. Chicago: ASCP Press;p. 1–85.

19. Javidian P, Garshelis L, Peterson P. Pathologist review of the peripheral film. A mandatory quality assurance activity. Clin Lab Med. 1993; 13:853–861. PMID: 8313685.

20. Peterson P, Blomberg DJ, Rabinovitch A, Cornbleet PJ. Physician review of the peripheral blood smear: when and why-an opinion. Lab Hematol. 2001; 7:175–179.

21. Gulati GL, Alomari M, Kochar W, Schwarting R. Critera for blood smear review. Lab Med. 2002; 33:374–377.

22. Sandhaus LM, Wald DN, Sauder KJ, Steele EL, Meyerson HJ. Measuring the clinical impact of pathologist reviews of blood and body fluid smears. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131:468–472. PMID: 17516750.