Show item record

dc.contributor.authorFrelinger, Andrew L.
dc.contributor.authorRivera, José
dc.contributor.authorConnor, David E.
dc.contributor.authorFreson, Kathleen
dc.contributor.authorGreinacher, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorHarrison, Paul
dc.contributor.authorKunishima, Shinji
dc.contributor.authorLordkipanidzé, Marie
dc.contributor.authorMichelson, Alan D.
dc.contributor.authorRamström, Sofia
dc.contributor.authorGresele, Paolo
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-02T14:11:13Z
dc.date.availableMONTHS_WITHHELD:12fr
dc.date.available2022-02-02T14:11:13Z
dc.date.issued2021-09-12
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1866/26195
dc.publisherWileyfr
dc.subjectFlow cytometryfr
dc.subjectPlateletfr
dc.subjectRAND/UCLA surveyfr
dc.subjectSSC platelet physiologyfr
dc.titleConsensus recommendations on flow cytometry for the assessment of inherited and acquired disorders of platelet number and function : communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Platelet Physiologyfr
dc.typeArticlefr
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversité de Montréal. Faculté de pharmaciefr
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jth.15526
dcterms.abstractFlow 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.fr
dcterms.isPartOfurn:ISSN:1538-7933fr
dcterms.isPartOfurn:ISSN:1538-7836fr
dcterms.languageengfr
UdeM.ReferenceFournieParDeposantPMID: 34580997fr
UdeM.VersionRioxxVersion acceptée / Accepted Manuscriptfr
oaire.citationTitleJournal of thrombosis and haemostasisfr
oaire.citationVolume19fr
oaire.citationIssue12fr
oaire.citationStartPage3193fr
oaire.citationEndPage3202fr


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show item record

This document disseminated on Papyrus is the exclusive property of the copyright holders and is protected by the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42). It may be used for fair dealing and non-commercial purposes, for private study or research, criticism and review as provided by law. For any other use, written authorization from the copyright holders is required.