PERBEDAAN HITUNG JUMLAH TROMBOSIT CARA LANGSUNG DAN BARBARA BROWN (SADT ZONA IV,V,VI dan ZONA V) : (SADT ZONA IV,V,VI dan ZONA V)

Kartika Ikawati Ikawati

doi:10.52488/jnh.v9i3, September.379

Authors

Kartika Ikawati Ikawati AKKES 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52488/jnh.v9i3,%20September.379

Keywords:

Platelet count, Direct method, Barbara Brown

Abstract

Direct and Barbara Brown manual platelet counts are the reference methods recommended by ICSH. This manual method is used to confirm if the automatic method can not produce accurate results. Until now there has been no reference that mentions the SADT reading zone for estimating platelet counts. Peripheral blood smear has six zones with different cell distribution and density. The aim of this study was to determine the difference in platelet counts examined using the direct method, Barbara Brown's method of reading zones IV, V, VI and Barbara Brown's reading of zone V. This type of research is analytical observation with a cross-sectional design. The research sample was 30 taken using random sampling technique from the student population of AKKES 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang. The research was conducted in March 2024 at the AKKES Hematology Lab 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang. Counting the number of platelets is done directly by diluting the blood with Rees Ecker's solution into a thoma pipette. The estimation method for calculating the number of platelets (Barbara Brown) is done by calculating the average number of platelets in 10 SADT fields of view and multiplying by a conversion factor of 20.000. . The highest platelet count results were obtained from the Barbara Brown method (SADT zone IV, V, VI) with a mean of 342,470 ± 46,185 cells/(µL), followed by the direct method with a mean of 327,230 ± 50,447 cells/µL and the lowest was the SADT zone V a mean of 319,930 ± 39,172 cells/µL. There was a smaller difference between the direct method and Barabara Brown (SADT zone V). The results of the Anova and Post Hoc tests showed p > 0.05, which means there was no significant difference between the three methods.

Keywords: Platelet count; Direct method; Barbara Brown

References

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Afzal MM, Indira V, Colonel DR. (2019). Role of peripheral blood smear examination and manual platelet counts as an adjunct to automated platelet count. MRIMS J Health Sci. Vol 7(3):81-4

Al-Hosni ZS, Al-Khabori M, Al-Mamari S, Al Qasabi J, Davis H, Al-Lawati H, et al.(2016). Reproducibility of manual platelet estimationfollowing automated low platelet counts. Oman Med J. Vol.31(6):409-13.

Aliyu A. Babadoko, Ismaila N. Ibrahim, Abubakar U. Musa1, Nasiru U. (2016). Reproducibility of Hematological Parameteres Manual Versus Automated Method. African Journal of Medicine. 3:65-70.

Barbara J. Bain, Imelda Bates and Michael A. Laffan.2017. Dacie and Lewis Practical Haematology. Ed.12. ISBN. 978-0-7020-6696-2. Elsevier Ltd.

Dosen TLM Indonesia.(2020). Hematologi Teknologi Laboratorium Medik (TLM).Penerbit buku kedokteran (EGC).Jakarta. hal:77-209

Gandasoebrata R.(2013). Penuntun Laboratorium Klinis. Jakarta, Dian Rakyat.

Hoffbrand,A.V, Pettit & Moss.(2016). Kapita Selekta Hematologi. ed.6

Jain DK. (2020). Comparison of platelet count by manual and automated method. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 8(10):3523. DOI:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20204011

Kurniawan LB, (2014). Konfirmasi Apusan Darah Tepi untuk Pseudotrombositopenia. CDK.217/vol.41no.6,th.2014:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271508183

Kurniasih E, Astuti TD, (2024).Comparison Of Result Counting Blood Cell Number Of EDTA Vena Blood Specimen Using Manual And Automatic Methods. Borneo Journal of Medical Laboratory Technology (BJMLT), Vol 6 No 2 April 2024, Page 495 – 501

Lavanya M, Jayanth C, Maria A and Janani V. (2019). Platelet Estimation by Manual and Automated Methods. Journal Annals of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine,6 (11). DOI:10.21276/apalm.2538

Lestari R.A.W.(2017). Penentuan Faktor Estimasi Jumlah Trombosit Pada Sediaan Apus Darah Tepi Pasien Trombositopenia Berdasarkan Perhitungan Jumlah Trombosit Di RS. Dr. H. Slamet Martodirdjo Pamekasan. Corpus ID: 217192822

Mckenzie, S. B., William, J. L., Piwowar, K. L. (2015). Clinical Laboratory Hematology.Third edition. New jersey : Pearson Education. p. 794-795

Maharani D.R. (2017). Perbedaan Hitung Jumlah Trombosit Metode Impedansi, Langsung Dan Barbara Brown (skripsi). Prosiding Seminar Nasional Publikasi Hasil-Hasil Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Unimus

Mustika YS, Oktari A, Mahmud D, Perbandingan Hasil Hitung Jumlah Trombosit Menggunakan Metode Manual Dan Automatic Di Klinik Dr. Fakhrurrozi Depok. Jurnal Analis Biologi. Vol 06. No.02.

Rahayu,Hani, (2016), Perbedaan Hitung Jumlah Trombosit Menggunakan Larutan Rees Ecker, Amonium Oksalat 1% Dan Sediaan Apus Darah Tepi. Skripsi.Unimus.http://repository.unimus.ac.id/123/1/FULL%20TEXT.pdf

Septiana M. (2022). Literature Review: Perbandingan Jumlah Trombosit Antara Metode Manual Menggunakan Sediaan Apus Darah Tepi (Sadt) Dan Metode Automatic Dengan Prinsip Impedansi. Skripsi thesis, Universitas 'Aisyiyah Yogyakarta.

Véronique B, Geneviève F, Jacqmin H, Bernard C, Sandrine G, Soraya W, et al.(2020). Platelet counting: ugly traps and good advice. Proposals from the French- speaking cellular hematology group. J Clin Med;16;9(3):808. doi: 10.3390/jcm9030808.

Vyankatesh T. Anchinmane, Shilpa V. Sankhe (2019). Utility of peripheral blood smear in platelet count estimation. Int J Res Med Sci. vol;7(2):434-437. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20190348