Talk:Complete blood count

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Need separate article on differential white blood cell count[edit]

IMHO there should be a separate article devoted just to the differential white blood cell count, rather than only including the information in the article about the CBC. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Total white blood count[edit]

This is more for interest than anything else, but whereabouts do you request a CBC and only get a total white count (without diff)? T 12:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, where I gained most of my clinical experience, many hospitals do not routinely perform the diff. IMHO, this is folly, and in the UK (where I work now) a full/complete blood count is indeed full/complete, including the diff. In addition, microscopy is performed on samples when expressly requested (e.g. patient with fever, confusion and bruising - DD TTP. Schistocytes?) JFW | T@lk 14:27, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is a bit strange a differential isn't routinely done there. If it's done with a machine, the additional cost of running the sample through the diff channel (and the reagents needed for this) must be a small proportion of the total cost. Insignificant for the extra information obtained with a diff. T 10:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On the east coast of the US, you can't assume you'll get a differential when you get a WBC, unless you specifically request it, and even then your request may not be honored. The lab has established criteria (one differential every three days max for hospitalized patients (unless otherwise ordered), or no differential if WBC not elevated unless requested. Doing fewer differentials saves not only on the reagents, but on technician time. It's not optimal but it's workable. - Nunh-huh 10:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If it's done on an automated analyser it won't be any more work for the technicians, (the sample will spend longer on the machine, but this usually won't affect the amount of work) but i get your point. I've worked in a hospital and a 'community' (private) lab in NZ, (in two different provinces). Diffs get done on everything. In the hospital i worked in, retics and NRBCs were done on all paed samples (as they're put through the machine manually) even if the result is never seen. But i s'pose inefficiencies like this exist in every industry. T 10:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In this instance at least, the feeling was that if a differential was given it could not be merely a machine differential: it was an indication that an actual and hopefully knowledgable human had actually looked at the peripheral smear, with all the possibilities for thereby discerning things a machine would not detect. - Nunh-huh 21:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A machine differential will give a more precise, and nearly as accurate diff as a human; and in a 'normal' sample you'll get the results (#s of neuts/lymphs/monos/etc) you want. Where I am now, a blood film is done if the diff is abnormal enough to expect a change in morphology (e.g. WBCs > 15 x109/L). The machine will also flag things like blasts, immature grans, atypical lymphs etc, and a film is done on these. T 22:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the UK haematology lab I work at the rough rule of thumb is that if a patient is ill we will do a diff, if they are injured then we will not by default. The main catagories of parients who do not get one are: pregant women, postnatal women, pre-op and post op patients. The reason it is done is money. the 5-10% of samples we put through "diff off" save the department £2000 per year. Not much really, but then this is the NHS. Microscopy is done on all paed samples, and retics are done on newborns. other patients get it when they are outside normal ranges and especially is the analyser flags up blasts etc. We do not use the analyser for retics as the reagent is quite expensive, and its cheaper to do one manually using a Merrett tube. --Povmcdov 16:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

haemoglobin measured on single cell?[edit]

"automated hematology analyzers also measure the amount of haemoglobin in our blood and within each red blood cell" I don't think the haemoglobin content is measured on each cell, but rather on the lysed content of a bunch of cells.

full blood count vs cbc[edit]

I was surprised to find this title. Where is "full blood count" used more than cbc? Is this european or british usage? I've never heard the term in the US. Alteripse 16:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's UK usage. Asking for a CBC would draw a blank in this part of the world. JFW | T@lk 00:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) OK thanks. Alteripse 00:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In our lab (in the UK) we use Coulter Gen S series cell counters (made in the US). When selecting the type of test the menu you are presented with offers "CBC only" and "CBC + Diff" as options. It seems that Coulters view is that CBC refers only to the WCC/RBC/PLT component of the test and not to the diff. I'm willing to trust them, after all, They did invent the rheostatic method of cell counting (ie. the coulter principle) --Povmcdov 16:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Per wikipedia naming conventions, the more common name should be the title. CBC is far more common than FBC. Ace-o-aces 05:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Request: normal range of counts in mammals[edit]

Could someone please provide a normal range of the above counts in the most important mammals (like human, mouse, cow, pig) and possible diseases, if out of range (maybe separated by "below" and "above"). THANKS. massa 09:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The spectrum of diseases is probably quite similar, but I have no access to the veterinary reference ranges. Perhaps Google will help. JFW | T@lk 18:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is not as easy as it may seem. Reference values in humans vary according to age and sex, so I assume the same would be true of other mammals.

Glandular fever / infectious mononucleosis[edit]

I will be making a minor edit to the section regarding significance of results. It states that monocytes are raised in GF/IM. This is not the case, it is the lymphocytes that increase in number. I suspect the error was made because of the similarity between the terms monocyte and mononuclear lymphocyte. I am not a stste registed BMS, just a tech, but I do monospot tests most days. --Povmcdov 16:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate, your expertise is much welcomed. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article rating[edit]

I think that this article could easily reach "B" class for quality if it had more than one reference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The existing reference doesn't work anymore. The web site still exists, but has been rearranged and I can't find any pages on blood. MarcM1098 (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


"Hemogram" is redirected here. Can the definition of "hemogram" be added to this article (even if just to say it is identical to CBC, if that is the case)? Wakablogger2 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


i don't know how to edit this diagram, but it has a typo, saying hbg for hemoglobin rather ythan hgb.Toyokuni3 (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I just uploaded a new one Major_Small (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

More references needed[edit]

This article has had a "more references needed" tag on it since 2007. It is difficult to find sources for concepts like this because the concept is so ubiquitous that CBC is not described well anywhere online. I added a Mayo Clinic source which is below the level Wikipedia needs, and other clinics similarly have explanations which are too simplistic to be of much use here. I think this article should be sourced with a textbook, but I only have easy access to online resources and textbooks are not easily found online. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox problems[edit]

"Schematics (also called "Fishbones") of shorthand for complete blood count commonly used by clinicians. The shorthand on the right is used more often in the US."

a) There is no shorthand on the right. (If 'shorthand' is just another word for 'schematic', then there is only one. Otherwise, I see no "shorthands" in the infobox.

b) The sentence is awkward at best: Schematics of shorthand...

c) Using two words for the same concept is not kind to readers.

Item: If I there is no objection, I will change the first sentence to:

Schematic commonly used by clinicians to represent complete blood count results (sometimes called "Fishbones"). The numeric results are placed in the positions indicated.

Item: If two diagrams are not provided, I will change the second sentence to:

The results are placed in different positions in different countries. Do not assume this is the format used for actual results you wish to interpret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquin (talkcontribs) 18:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)