COVID-19 Update - This is to inform you that the Government of India has announced a complete lockdown in India 22nd March 2020 to 3rd May 2020. As a result, our offices will now be closed till 3rd May 2020 and all our employees will be working from home. Office telephones will not be answered, and therefore you are requested to direct all your queries related to manuscript submission, review process, publication etc. at below mentioned details.,, Mob. 8826373757, 8826859373, 9910947804

Article view: 1057

Article download: 179

IP Journal of Diagnostic Pathology and Oncology

Comparative evaluation of Rosner’s index (ICA) Vs Chang’s (% correction) as a screening test (mixing study)

Full Text PDF Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Author Details : Mirza Asif Baig, Anil K. Sirasagi

Volume : 3, Issue : 3, Year : 2018

Article Page : 196-201

Suggest article by email


Introduction: It is difficult to interpretate mixing study results (both screening & confirmatory) in presence of LAC. The main objective of this study is to define cut off values for ICA & % Correction which will reduce the no. of false positive & negative cases & will help in proper categorization of factor deficiency & inhibitors. This study also briefs about preanalytical errors & their correction
Material and Methods:
Rosner Index= × Cut offs ? 10 = Correction & ? 15 = Inhibitor

Latest Sysmex CS-5100 auto-analyser was used to determine the Cut-offs. DRVVT mixing test ratio (Rosners index/ ICA) 1.15, % correction = 10, DRVVT Normalised ratio (NR) = 1.05. p value < 0>15 is 91.1% sensitive for inhibitor diagnosis & it could not categorise, 8% of total cases into factor deficiency /inhibitor.
Discussion: Rosners index (ICA) as a confirmatory test for LA is more sensitive than % correction & DRVVT NR. Chang’s % correction with a cut off value of >70% is 85% sensitive in diagnosing factor deficiency & a cut off value of <58> Conclusion: It can be safely concluded that Rosner index is better than % correction, both as a screening test & confirmatory test, to differentiate factor deficiency from inhibitor. This study results are in agreement with CLSI guidelines & favours the sequential order screen-confirm- & then if required mixing study as in case of screen and confirm analysis is not clear-cut and/or when other causes of prolonged clotting times are known or suspected The draw back with the mixing studies is that weak LAC can be missed. Though in this study Nijmegen is better than Bethesda in terms of sensitivity & specificity as the later gives false positive results, other studies has to be taken into consideration which shows that both the Bethesda & Nijgmegen technique have low specificity at higher inhibitor titre. If actual quantitation of high titre activity is required, then it is more reliable to estimate empirically plasma dilution that gives 50% inhibition.

Keywords: Lupus anticoagulant, Pooled normal plasma, Mixing study, Rosner’s Index, Changs % correction.

Doi : 10.18231/2581-3706.2018.0041

How to cite : Baig M A, Sirasagi A K, Comparative evaluation of Rosner’s index (ICA) Vs Chang’s (% correction) as a screening test (mixing study). IP J Diagn Pathol Oncol 2018;3(3):196-201

Copyright © 2018 by author(s) and IP J Diagn Pathol Oncol. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) (