Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid differential cell count. How many cells should be counted?

Authors: Els I G B, De Brauwer; Jan A, Jacobs; Fred, Nieman; Cathrien A, Bruggeman; Marjolein, Drent;

Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid differential cell count. How many cells should be counted?

Abstract

To investigate the number of cells to be counted in cytocentrifuged bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid preparations in order to reach a reliable enumeration of each cell type.A total of 136 BAL fluid samples for patients with suspected pneumonia or interstitial lung disease were investigated. Differential cell counts were performed on May-Grünwald-Giemsa-stained cytocentrifuged preparations by 2 observers, each differentiating 500 cells. Reliability for the enumeration of each cell type was expressed as phi value, as calculated in generalizability theory.For polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMNs), alveolar macrophages, lymphocytes and eosinophils, an acceptable phi value of > or = .95 was reached at a count of 300 cells by 1 observer. Mast cells reached a phi value of only .674 at a count of 500 cells by 1 observer, precluding a reliable count. At a count of 500 cells by 1 observer, squamous epithelial cells, bronchial epithelial cells and plasma cells displayed phi values of .868, .903 and .816, respectively.At a count of 300 cells, PMNs, alveolar macrophages, lymphocytes and eosinophils are reliably enumerated in cytocentrifuged BAL fluid samples.

Keywords

Neutrophils, Plasma Cells, Reproducibility of Results, Cell Count, Centrifugation, Epithelial Cells, Eosinophils, Leukocyte Count, Macrophages, Alveolar, Humans, Lymphocytes, Mast Cells, Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    21
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
21
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!