Key result
Noninvasive platelet monitoring devices fail to adequately assess concentrate quality compared to standard methods.
Why the study?
The accuracy of the Platelet Monitoring System and NAPSAC instruments in noninvasively assessing platelet concentrate quality during storage was uncertain.
Do the PMS and NAPSAC instruments accurately assess the quality of platelet concentrates compared to standard methods?
Population
121 platelet concentrates stored 1 to 7 days in PL732 containers plus 13 stored 5 days and transfused autologously
Comparison
PMS and NAPSAC instruments versus standard platelet concentration, % discs, and pH methods
Design
Observational study
Follow-up
1 to 7 days of storage
Authors
Loading...
These instruments should not replace standard platelet quality testing; leaves open development of accurate noninvasive monitors.
Observational (n=134)
Do the PMS and NAPSAC instruments accurately assess the quality of platelet concentrates compared to standard methods?
Effect estimate: r ≤ 0.76 for counts, r ≤ 0.62 for % discs; sensitivity ≤ 83%, specificity ≤ 63%
Neither the PMS nor the NAPSAC instrument adequately assesses the quality of PL732 platelet concentrates noninvasively.
George et al. (1989) conducted an observational in Platelet concentrate quality assessment (n=134). Platelet Monitoring System (PMS) and NAPSAC instruments vs. Standard method values (platelet concentration, % discs, and pH) was evaluated on Accuracy in assessing platelet quality (correlation for NAPSAC, sensitivity and specificity for PMS) (r ≤ 0.76 for counts, r ≤ 0.62 for % discs; sensitivity ≤ 83%, specificity ≤ 63%). The Platelet Monitoring System and NAPSAC instruments did not adequately assess platelet concentrate quality, demonstrating poor correlation (r≤0.76) and low sensitivity (≤83%) versus standard methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: