Jéssica Gonçalves1, Emilio Pizzichini2, Marcia Margaret Menezes Pizzichini2, Leila John Marques Steidle3, Cristiane Cinara Rocha4, Samira Cardoso Ferreira1, Célia Tânia Zimmermann5. 1. Clinical Analysis Department, University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. 2. University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. 3. Department of Clinical Medicine, University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. 4. Center for Research on Asthma and Airway Inflammation, University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. 5. Clinical Analysis Department, Laboratory Technician, University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of a rapid hematology stain for the cytological analysis of induced sputum samples. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study comparing the standard technique (May-Grünwald-Giemsa stain) with a rapid hematology stain (Diff-Quik). Of the 50 subjects included in the study, 21 had asthma, 19 had COPD, and 10 were healthy (controls). From the induced sputum samples collected, we prepared four slides: two were stained with May-Grünwald-Giemsa, and two were stained with Diff-Quik. The slides were read independently by two trained researchers blinded to the identification of the slides. The reliability for cell counting using the two techniques was evaluated by determining the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Agreement in the identification of neutrophilic and eosinophilic sputum between the observers and between the stains was evaluated with kappa statistics. RESULTS: In our comparison of the two staining techniques, the ICCs indicated almost perfect interobserver agreement for neutrophil, eosinophil, and macrophage counts (ICC: 0.98-1.00), as well as substantial agreement for lymphocyte counts (ICC: 0.76-0.83). Intraobserver agreement was almost perfect for neutrophil, eosinophil, and macrophage counts (ICC: 0.96-0.99), whereas it was moderate to substantial for lymphocyte counts (ICC = 0.65 and 0.75 for the two observers, respectively). Interobserver agreement for the identification of eosinophilic and neutrophilic sputum using the two techniques ranged from substantial to almost perfect (kappa range: 0.91-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The use of Diff-Quik can be considered a reliable alternative for the processing of sputum samples.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of a rapid hematology stain for the cytological analysis of induced sputum samples. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study comparing the standard technique (May-Grünwald-Giemsa stain) with a rapid hematology stain (Diff-Quik). Of the 50 subjects included in the study, 21 had asthma, 19 had COPD, and 10 were healthy (controls). From the induced sputum samples collected, we prepared four slides: two were stained with May-Grünwald-Giemsa, and two were stained with Diff-Quik. The slides were read independently by two trained researchers blinded to the identification of the slides. The reliability for cell counting using the two techniques was evaluated by determining the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Agreement in the identification of neutrophilic and eosinophilic sputum between the observers and between the stains was evaluated with kappa statistics. RESULTS: In our comparison of the two staining techniques, the ICCs indicated almost perfect interobserver agreement for neutrophil, eosinophil, and macrophage counts (ICC: 0.98-1.00), as well as substantial agreement for lymphocyte counts (ICC: 0.76-0.83). Intraobserver agreement was almost perfect for neutrophil, eosinophil, and macrophage counts (ICC: 0.96-0.99), whereas it was moderate to substantial for lymphocyte counts (ICC = 0.65 and 0.75 for the two observers, respectively). Interobserver agreement for the identification of eosinophilic and neutrophilic sputum using the two techniques ranged from substantial to almost perfect (kappa range: 0.91-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The use of Diff-Quik can be considered a reliable alternative for the processing of sputum samples.
Authors: A Efthimiadis; A Spanevello; Q Hamid; M M Kelly; M Linden; R Louis; M M M Pizzichini; E Pizzichini; C Ronchi; F Van Overvel; R Djukanović Journal: Eur Respir J Suppl Date: 2002-09
Authors: I D Pavord; P J Sterk; F E Hargreave; J C Kips; M D Inman; R Louis; M M M Pizzichini; E H Bel; I Pin; D C Grootendorst; K Parameswaran; R Djukanović Journal: Eur Respir J Suppl Date: 2002-09
Authors: Beatriz M Saraiva-Romanholo; Viviani Barnabé; Ana Lúcia I Carvalho; Milton A Martins; Paulo H N Saldiva; Maria do Patrocínio T Nunes Journal: Chest Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: V C H Dos Santos; M A F Moreira; A V da Rosa; S M Sobragi; C A J da Silva; P T R Dalcin Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 2.590