PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jane F Emerson

Publications and source records attributed to Jane F Emerson.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Evaluation of a standardized procedure for [corrected] microscopic cell counts [corrected] in body fluids.

A standardized urinalysis and manual microscopic cell counting system was evaluated for its potential to reduce intra- and interoperator variability in urine and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cell counts. Replicate aliquots of pooled specimens were submitted blindly to technologists who were instructed to use either the Kova system with the disposable Glasstic slide (Hycor Biomedical, Inc., Garden Grove, CA) or the standard operating procedure of the University of California-Irvine (UCI), which uses plain glass slides for urine sediments and hemacytometers for CSF. The Hycor system provides a mechanical means of obtaining a fixed volume of fluid in which to resuspend the sediment, and fixes the volume of specimen to be microscopically examined by using capillary filling of a chamber containing in-plane counting grids. Ninety aliquots of pooled specimens of each type of body fluid were used to assess the inter- and intraoperator reproducibility of the measurements. The variability of replicate Hycor measurements made on a single specimen by the same or different observers was compared with that predicted by a Poisson distribution. The Hycor methods generally resulted in test statistics that were slightly lower than those obtained with the laboratory standard methods, indicating a trend toward decreasing the effects of various sources of variability. For 15 paired aliquots of each body fluid, tests for systematically higher or lower measurements with the Hycor methods were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Also examined was the average difference between the Hycor and current laboratory standard measurements, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the true average difference. Without increasing labor or the requirement for attention to detail, the Hycor method provides slightly better interrater comparisons than the current method used at UCI.

Cell Count↗

Screening for interference in immunoassays.

BACKGROUND: The presence of interfering substances in patient samples submitted for immunoassay cannot be reliably anticipated. We therefore evaluated three interference screening techniques and estimated the prevalence of interfering substances as defined by positive outcomes with these protocols. METHODS: We evaluated 160 samples for the presence of substances that may interfere with four immunoassays (40 samples for each): thyroid-stimulating hormone, prostate-specific antigen, beta-human chorionic gonadotropin, and cortisol. Interference was defined by nonlinear responses with serial dilution, discrepant results after pretreatment with heterophile blocking reagent (HBR), and positive reactions on a mouse-antibody-negative control reaction (Tandem ICON ImmunoConcentration HCG). Criteria for declaring significant discrepant results were based on a Z-score computed using the assay CV. The McNemar test was used to compare the prevalence of discrepancies across the three screening techniques. The association between type of immunoassay and prevalence of discrepant results was determined by a modified Pearson chi(2) statistic. RESULTS: Five of the 160 samples [3.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-7.1%] screened positive with the ICON. Seventy-two of the 148 samples with informative serial dilutions (48.6%; 95% CI, 40.4-57.0%) had at least one discrepant result at higher dilutions. After pretreatment with HBR, 53 of the 140 samples (38%; 95% CI, 29.8-46%) were discrepant. Only 48 of the 140 samples with informative measurements for all three screening techniques (34%; 95% CI, 26-43%) were negative by all three. The prevalence of positive screens varied significantly by type of immunoassay (P <0.0001) for both HBR and serial dilution. Only 3% (0.8-7%) of the samples tested with HBR showed a change from normal to abnormal or the reverse after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a protocol based on any of these three techniques into the immunochemistry laboratory to prescreen for interfering substances is not warranted. The evaluation of specimens for the presence of interfering anti-animal antibodies should be reserved for cases in which clinical history or suspicious results indicate the need.

Animals↗

Dyslipidemia prevalence in a laboratory initiated screening program.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate utilization and diagnosis rates in a self-pay, self-referred screening program for dyslipidemia. DESIGN: 301 patients self-referred to the clinical laboratory for lipid testing in a two-year period. The patient population that participated was characterized in terms of insurance status, gender, age, and known cardiovascular risk factors. Lipid profiles were characterized as measured by total cholesterol, triglycerides (TGs), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), and total cholesterol to HDL risk factor. SETTING: Clinical laboratory in an academic medical center. PATIENTS: Data from all patients that self-selected for screening were included. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate laboratory results with both verbal and written interpretations and recommendations were provided to the patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age, gender, insurance status, number of known risk factors, and lipid profiles in the subject group. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 57 years. Men (197) outnumbered women (104) by almost 2:1; most (94%) had health insurance. At presentation, 44% of the patients had more than one risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). 151 individuals (50%) had lipid findings that would require at least dietary intervention by NCEP guidelines. CONCLUSION: A self-pay, self-referred screening program for lipid disorders is an effective means of improving screening and diagnosis rates. Patients with insurance were willing to pay for the convenience offered and men in particular were more likely to self-refer than women, independent of previous knowledge of risk factors or lipid disorders.

Adult↗