Author, publication date, and institution | Study subjects and design | Results | Authors’ conclusions |
---|---|---|---|
Fairbanks et al. [4] 1971 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota | 2 blood smears per subject (24 normal controls + 38 patients with IDA) reviewed, for the purposes of the study, by 9 staff and resident hematologists | Among all interpretations: • False positives (IDA reported on a control patient): 5.8% • False negatives (IDA not reported on IDA case): 51.0% • Consensus among all 9 reviewers: 5 of 38 blood smears from IDA patients Average intra observer variability (discrepancy when a reviewer reviewed the same smear twice): 22% | “Except when morphologic changes are pronounced, the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia from examination of the peripheral blood film is difficult and not very reliable.” |
Jen et al. [5] 1983 Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts | 288 anemic inpatients with blood smears reviewed in the context of clinical care by laboratory staff, with or without physician review | • Only 5 of 11 (45%) common RBC morphologic abnormalities showed both inter- and intra-observer reproducibility better than chance. • Among patients evaluated for iron, folate, or B12 deficiency, red cell indices showed similar or better specificity and positive predictive value than blood smear interpretation. • Among smears interpreted by laboratory staff, additional physician interpretation yielded “unique” diagnostic information in no cases and “helpful” information in 2.2% of cases. | • “Blood smear readings are poorly reproducible, are no better than RBC indices for screening for possible deficiency states, and only occasionally provide unique information.” • “The physician’s reading is most important for the confirmation of abnormal WBC morphology and is most likely to add incremental value in patients whose elevated reticulocyte counts suggest hemolysis.” |
Simmons et al. [6] 1989 Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC | 12 cases of anemia with blood smear and clinical and CBC data reviewed, for the purposes of the study, by 65 residents, fellows, and staff physicians | • Access to a peripheral smear did not significantly change the number or appropriateness of tests ordered. • Access to a peripheral smear did not significantly improve the reviewer’s ability to make a correct diagnosis. | “RBC review, even when accurate, does not improve clinical problem solving across a variety of common anemias and among a broad cross section of residents, internists, and hematologists.” |
Kurt-Mangold et al. [7] 2018 University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics | Chart review of patients associated with 277 clinician-ordered peripheral blood smear reviews | • 68% of smear review reports included unique data beyond that already described in the medical record. • 52% of smear review results were not mentioned in patients’ clinical notes. • Data obtained from peripheral smear review impacted clinical decision making in 1% of cases. | “Only rarely do [data from peripheral blood smear review] appear to be clinically significant and the information frequently overlaps with information already provided by laboratory-initiated smear reviews.” |