Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs
Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Comparative haematology international - London : Springer, 1991, 32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:32 ; year:2023 ; number:4 ; day:05 ; month:04 ; pages:645-649 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR052587517 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR052587517 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230801064758.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230801s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR052587517 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s00580-023-03472-3-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Platelet automated count |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Platelet smear estimative |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Platelet: Red blood cell ratio |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque |0 (orcid)0000-0001-5859-6335 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a de Faria Valle, Stella |0 (orcid)0000-0001-8507-257X |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Comparative haematology international |d London : Springer, 1991 |g 32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649 |w (DE-627)559430590 |w (DE-600)2413027-8 |x 1433-2973 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:32 |g year:2023 |g number:4 |g day:05 |g month:04 |g pages:645-649 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_171 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_187 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_250 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_281 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 32 |j 2023 |e 4 |b 05 |c 04 |h 645-649 | ||
| author_variant |
a b u s abu abus a b a d aba abad f v s d fvs fvsd |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:14332973:2023----::oprtvaayibtenwmtosoetmtvpaeecutnt |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2023 |
| publishDate |
2023 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 doi (DE-627)SPR052587517 (SPR)s00580-023-03472-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa verfasserin aut Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method. Platelet automated count (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet smear estimative (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet: Red blood cell ratio (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque (orcid)0000-0001-5859-6335 aut de Faria Valle, Stella (orcid)0000-0001-8507-257X aut Enthalten in Comparative haematology international London : Springer, 1991 32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649 (DE-627)559430590 (DE-600)2413027-8 1433-2973 nnns volume:32 year:2023 number:4 day:05 month:04 pages:645-649 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 AR 32 2023 4 05 04 645-649 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 doi (DE-627)SPR052587517 (SPR)s00580-023-03472-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa verfasserin aut Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method. Platelet automated count (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet smear estimative (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet: Red blood cell ratio (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque (orcid)0000-0001-5859-6335 aut de Faria Valle, Stella (orcid)0000-0001-8507-257X aut Enthalten in Comparative haematology international London : Springer, 1991 32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649 (DE-627)559430590 (DE-600)2413027-8 1433-2973 nnns volume:32 year:2023 number:4 day:05 month:04 pages:645-649 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 AR 32 2023 4 05 04 645-649 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 doi (DE-627)SPR052587517 (SPR)s00580-023-03472-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa verfasserin aut Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method. Platelet automated count (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet smear estimative (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet: Red blood cell ratio (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque (orcid)0000-0001-5859-6335 aut de Faria Valle, Stella (orcid)0000-0001-8507-257X aut Enthalten in Comparative haematology international London : Springer, 1991 32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649 (DE-627)559430590 (DE-600)2413027-8 1433-2973 nnns volume:32 year:2023 number:4 day:05 month:04 pages:645-649 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 AR 32 2023 4 05 04 645-649 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 doi (DE-627)SPR052587517 (SPR)s00580-023-03472-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa verfasserin aut Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method. Platelet automated count (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet smear estimative (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet: Red blood cell ratio (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque (orcid)0000-0001-5859-6335 aut de Faria Valle, Stella (orcid)0000-0001-8507-257X aut Enthalten in Comparative haematology international London : Springer, 1991 32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649 (DE-627)559430590 (DE-600)2413027-8 1433-2973 nnns volume:32 year:2023 number:4 day:05 month:04 pages:645-649 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 AR 32 2023 4 05 04 645-649 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 doi (DE-627)SPR052587517 (SPR)s00580-023-03472-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa verfasserin aut Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method. Platelet automated count (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet smear estimative (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet: Red blood cell ratio (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque (orcid)0000-0001-5859-6335 aut de Faria Valle, Stella (orcid)0000-0001-8507-257X aut Enthalten in Comparative haematology international London : Springer, 1991 32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649 (DE-627)559430590 (DE-600)2413027-8 1433-2973 nnns volume:32 year:2023 number:4 day:05 month:04 pages:645-649 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 AR 32 2023 4 05 04 645-649 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Comparative haematology international 32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649 volume:32 year:2023 number:4 day:05 month:04 pages:645-649 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Comparative haematology international 32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649 volume:32 year:2023 number:4 day:05 month:04 pages:645-649 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Platelet automated count Platelet smear estimative Platelet: Red blood cell ratio |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Comparative haematology international |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa @@aut@@ de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque @@aut@@ de Faria Valle, Stella @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2023-04-05T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
559430590 |
| id |
SPR052587517 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR052587517</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230801064758.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230801s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR052587517</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00580-023-03472-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Platelet automated count</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Platelet smear estimative</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Platelet: Red blood cell ratio</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-5859-6335</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Faria Valle, Stella</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-8507-257X</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Comparative haematology international</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Springer, 1991</subfield><subfield code="g">32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)559430590</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2413027-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1433-2973</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:32</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:05</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:645-649</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">32</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">05</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield><subfield code="h">645-649</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa |
| spellingShingle |
Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa misc Platelet automated count misc Platelet smear estimative misc Platelet: Red blood cell ratio Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs |
| authorStr |
Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)559430590 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1433-2973 |
| topic_title |
Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs Platelet automated count (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet smear estimative (dpeaa)DE-He213 Platelet: Red blood cell ratio (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Platelet automated count misc Platelet smear estimative misc Platelet: Red blood cell ratio |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Platelet automated count misc Platelet smear estimative misc Platelet: Red blood cell ratio |
| topic_browse |
misc Platelet automated count misc Platelet smear estimative misc Platelet: Red blood cell ratio |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Comparative haematology international |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
559430590 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Comparative haematology international |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)559430590 (DE-600)2413027-8 |
| title |
Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR052587517 (SPR)s00580-023-03472-3-e |
| title_full |
Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs |
| author_sort |
Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa |
| journal |
Comparative haematology international |
| journalStr |
Comparative haematology international |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2023 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
645 |
| author_browse |
Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque de Faria Valle, Stella |
| container_volume |
32 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 |
| normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0001-5859-6335 (ORCID)0000-0001-8507-257X |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0001-5859-6335 (orcid)0000-0001-8507-257X |
| title_sort |
comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs |
| title_auth |
Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs |
| abstract |
Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 |
| container_issue |
4 |
| title_short |
Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque de Faria Valle, Stella |
| author2Str |
de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque de Faria Valle, Stella |
| ppnlink |
559430590 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T03:20:03.755Z |
| _version_ |
1803616993936408576 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR052587517</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230801064758.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230801s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR052587517</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00580-023-03472-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative analysis between two methods for estimative platelet count in stained blood smears from dogs</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Platelet estimation in stained blood smears is essential to confirm the automated total platelet count in veterinary hematology, even when sophisticated automated techniques are used. We investigated for the first time the adequacy of platelet smear estimation using the platelet: red blood cell ratio, considering the effects of different values of red blood cell counts and platelets in the smear monolayer area. For this study, 73 EDTA canine blood samples obtained from routine hematology were selected. All samples were submitted to an automated cellular count in a veterinary analyzer (ProCyte Dx, Idexx Laboratories), followed by traditional microscopic platelet estimation in stained blood smears in 10 high-power fields (100 ×, in immersion oil). In the same smears, the relative method of platelet estimation was conducted using the platelet:red blood cell ratio obtained in a differential cell count (in at least 1000 cells) and the automated RBC count. The agreement between the traditional and relative methods was evaluated using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis and the Bland–Altman method. Compared with the automated method, the relative method demonstrated a systematic negative bias of 100 × $ 10^{3} $ platelets/μL and a proportional bias. No biases were observed between the traditional method for platelet estimation and the automated method. The results confirm that for dog blood samples, platelet estimation in stained blood smears is more reliable than the relative method.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Platelet automated count</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Platelet smear estimative</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Platelet: Red blood cell ratio</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Almeida, Bruno Albuquerque</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-5859-6335</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Faria Valle, Stella</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-8507-257X</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Comparative haematology international</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Springer, 1991</subfield><subfield code="g">32(2023), 4 vom: 05. Apr., Seite 645-649</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)559430590</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2413027-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1433-2973</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:32</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:05</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:645-649</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00580-023-03472-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">32</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">05</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield><subfield code="h">645-649</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.398135 |