3.9 Article

Immature Platelet Fraction: Establishment of a Reference Interval and Diagnostic Measure for Thrombocytopenia

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 451-459

出版社

KOREAN SOC LABORATORY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.5.451

关键词

Aplastic anemia; Immature platelet fraction; Immune thrombocytopenia; Reference interval; Sysmex XE-2100

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Immature platelet fraction (IPF, %) is a measure of reticulated platelets (RPs), which represents the state of thrombopoiesis. The IPF is obtained from an automated hematology analyzer as one of the platelet parameters. This study was performed to establish reference intervals of IPF and its cut-off values for the differential diagnosis of thrombocytopenia. Methods: Blood samples from 2,039 healthy individuals (1,161 males, 878 females) were obtained to establish reference intervals. The patient group included patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) (N = 150) and aplastic anemia (AA) (N = 51) with platelet counts of less than 100 x 10(9)/L. We evaluated the reliability of the IPF measurements, the reference intervals, and cut-off value for the diagnosis of ITP. Results: The reference intervals of IPF were 0.5-3.2% in males and 0.4-3.0% in females (95% confidence interval). The median IPF% of ITP and AA were 7.7% (range, 1.0-33.8%) and 3.5% (range, 0.6-12.9%), respectively. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the IPF% of ITP and AA (P<0.0001). The cut-off value of IPF for differentiating ITP from AA was 7.3% with a sensitivity and specificity of 54.0% and 92.2%, respectively. Conclusions: A rapid and inexpensive automated measurement of IPF can be integrated as a standard parameter to evaluate the thrombopoietic state of the bone marrow. This study determined the reference intervals of IPF from a large population of healthy individuals, including children. Further studies are needed to establish the clinical utility of IPF. (Korean J Lab Med 2010;30:451-9)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据