Abstract Background Accurate STAT cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cell counts are critical in supporting diagnoses of meningitis, malignancy, demyelinating disease, and hemorrhage. Limitations of automated analyzers to achieve acceptable linearity for the clinically relevant range has maintained manual CSF cell counting as the preferred method. Manual cell counting, performed with a hemocytometer and bright field microscope, is time-consuming, requires specialized skills and depends on human interpretation. This subjectivity inherently introduces the potential for non-random error in the enumeration of both total nucleated cells (TNC) and red blood cells in CSF by manual methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the level of bias inherent in manual determination (TNC) in CSF as compared to the GloCyte Automated Cell Counter. Methods Result bias data for CSF specimens processed in the hematology lab at Loyola University Medical Center, a quaternary care 547-bed academic medical center in Maywood, IL, was analyzed for manual cell counting using a Neubauer-improved hemocytometer and GloCyte, an FDA-cleared cell counting device employing fluorescence technology to automate RBC and TNC counts in under 5 minutes, with linearity down to 0 cells/µL. Result bias was determined by defining the “expected result” for both GloCyte and hemocytometer as the initial cell count determined at a 1:5 dilution of a freshly-collected CSF sample and calculating the expected cell count for subsequent serial dilutions of 1:10, 1:20, 1:50, 1:100 for each method. The actual TNC count and the disparity of the actual result from the expected result was recorded as bias. Results Data are summarized below in the Table, and indicate a lower bias for GloCyte compared to manual counts across the range of dilutions. Conclusions This study demonstrates that GloCyte can be implemented as a means of effectively mitigating the reporting bias of CSF TNC counts performed with a Neubauer-improved hemocytometer.
Read full abstract