Division of Hematology/Oncology, Center for Platelet Research Studies, Boston Children's Hospital, Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
J Thromb Haemost. 2021 Dec;19(12):3193-3202. doi: 10.1111/jth.15526. Epub 2021 Sep 27.
Flow cytometry is increasingly used in the study of platelets in inherited and acquired disorders of platelet number and function. However, wide variation exists in specific reagents, methods, and equipment used, making interpretation and comparison of results difficult. The goal of the present study was to provide expert consensus guidance on the use of flow cytometry for the evaluation of platelet disorders. A modified RAND/UCLA survey method was used to obtain a consensus among 11 experts from 10 countries across four continents, on the appropriateness of statements relating to clinical utility, pre-analytical variables, instrument and reagent standardization, methods, reporting, and quality control for platelet flow cytometry. Feedback from the initial survey revealed that uncertainty was sometimes due to lack of expertise with a particular test condition rather than unavailable or ambiguous data. To address this, the RAND method was modified to allow experts to self-identify statements for which they could not provide expert input. There was uniform agreement among experts in the areas of instrument and reagent standardization, methods, reporting, and quality control and this agreement is used to suggest best practices in these areas. However, 25.9% and 50% of statements related to pre-analytical variables and clinical utility, respectively, were rated as uncertain. Thus, while citrate is the preferred anticoagulant for many flow cytometric platelet tests, expert opinions differed on the acceptability of other anticoagulants, particularly heparin. Lack of expert consensus on the clinical utility of many flow cytometric platelet tests indicates the need for rigorous multicenter clinical outcome studies.
流式细胞术越来越多地用于研究血小板数量和功能遗传性和获得性疾病中的血小板。然而,在使用的特定试剂、方法和仪器方面存在广泛的差异,这使得结果的解释和比较变得困难。本研究的目的是为流式细胞术在血小板疾病评估中的应用提供专家共识指导。采用改良的 RAND/UCLA 调查方法,让来自四大洲 10 个国家的 11 名专家就与临床效用、分析前变量、仪器和试剂标准化、方法、报告和血小板流式细胞术质量控制相关的陈述的适当性达成共识。初步调查的反馈表明,不确定性有时是由于缺乏对特定测试条件的专业知识,而不是由于数据不可用或不明确。为了解决这个问题,对 RAND 方法进行了修改,允许专家为他们无法提供专业意见的陈述进行自我识别。在仪器和试剂标准化、方法、报告和质量控制方面,专家们达成了一致意见,并在此基础上提出了这些领域的最佳实践建议。然而,分别有 25.9%和 50%的与分析前变量和临床效用相关的陈述被评为不确定。因此,虽然柠檬酸盐是许多流式细胞术血小板检测的首选抗凝剂,但专家对其他抗凝剂(特别是肝素)的可接受性存在分歧。许多流式细胞术血小板检测的临床效用缺乏专家共识表明,需要进行严格的多中心临床结局研究。