A STUDY ON THE PLATELET COUNT BY MANUAL AND AUTOMATED METHOD IN ANEMIC PATIENTS: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH
Qurat Ul Islam*, Mohammad Shaban Wani, K. S. Rana, Dr. Pankaj Kaul, Farzana Noor, Syed Raif Hamid
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Platelets, also known as thrombocytes, are tiny cell fragments, shaped like disks of blood which are important for the formation of blood clots and the repair of wounds. Due to its immense importance in medical research, it is equally important to investigate the accuracy of the methods to estimate it. For this purpose, in the present study, an attempt has been made to compare the platelet count by manual and automated method in anaemic patients. Methodology: The study was designed as a cross-sectional analysis on stratified randomly selected 120 anaemic patients of Kashmir region. In manual method, platelet counts were determined using a hemocytometer, allowing for visual examination and counting of platelets under a microscope. In automated method, platelet counts were measured using an automated hematology analyzer, providing fast and accurate results. Results: The study demonstrated variation in platelet count between automated analyzer and manual platelet counting. In the age-group 18-25 years, the platelets analyzed by Analayzer was 1.5, by Neubauer Chamber was 1.7 and by by PBF was 1.9. In age group 26-35 years, the platelets count analyzed by Analayzer was 1.4, by Neubauer Chamber was 1.6 and by by PBF was 1.5. In age group 36-45 years, the platelets analyzed by Analayzer was 1.3, by Neubauer Chamber was 1.5 and by by PBF was 1.4. Conclusion: It may be concluded that both methods can capitalize on their respective strengths, ensuring accurate and reliable platelet counts in clinical practice. It could be also concluded that manual method emerged as the most accurate and could serve to quality-check automated analysers or aid underprivileged laboratories in patient management.
Keywords: Platelet count. Manualmethod. Automated method. Anaemic patients.
[Full Text Article]
[Download Certificate]
Impact Factor : 8.181 
