Platelet estimation by peripheral smear: Reliable, rapid, cost-effective method to assess degree of thrombocytopenia

Ritu Bajpai, Chanda Rajak, Meghna Poonia



To compare the estimation of platelet count done by peripheral smear method and by automated cell counter.


Thrombocytopenia is associated with many diseases such as malaria, dengue, pregnancy-induced hypertension, etc., and is one of the critical parameters in patient management. The automated method is considered as the most reliable method. It is simple, fast, and most widely used, but the accurate count of platelets by automated cell counters is not available for all patients, especially in rural areas. In such settings, platelet estimation by peripheral smear is more feasible, than by automated cell counter in thrombocytopenia patients.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 92 ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid samples of patients were received in the laboratory and platelet count was evaluated by two techniques: (1) Automated platelet count, (2) Assessment of platelet count on Leishman’s stained smear.


There is no significant (P = 0.69) difference of values between our method of platelet estimation (0.94 ± 0.29 lacs/mm3) when compared with that of automated cell counter platelet value (0.91 lacs/mm3 ± 0.27).


The method of platelet estimation by peripheral smear is useful as a rapid, cheap method to assess platelet count and can be done in rural hospital settings. 


Peripheral smear, platelet, thrombocytopenia

Full Text:



Hartwing HJ. Platelet morphology. In: Loscalzo J, Schafer IA, editors. Thrombosis and Haemorrhage. 2nd ed. Blatimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1998. p. 207.

Stenberg PE, Levin J. Mechanisms of platelet production. Blood Cells 1989;15:23-47.

Ogawa M. Differentiation and proliferation of hematopoietic stem cells. Blood 1993;81:2844-53.

Behnke O, Forer A. Blood platelet heterogeneity: Evidence for two classes of platelets in man and rat. Br J Haematol 1993;84:686-93.

Zucker MB, Borrelli J. Reversible alterations in platelet morphology produced by anticoagulants and by cold. Blood 1954;9:602-8.

Paula ES, Ronald JH. Platelets and megakaryocytes. In: Foerster J, Lukens J, Paraskevos F, editors. Wintrobes Clinical Haematology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1981. p. 355-6.

Nurden AT, Nurden P, Sanchez M, Andia I, Anitua E. Platelets and wound healing. Front Biosci 2008;13:3532-48.

Firkin F, Chesterman C, Penington D, Rush B. The haemorrhagic disorders. In: De Gruchy’s Clinical Hematology in Medical Praclice. 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1989. p. 375-6.

Malok M, Titchener EH, Bridgers C, Lee BY, Bamberg R. Comparison of two platelet count estimation methodologies for peripheral blood smears. Clin Lab Sci 2007;20:154-60.

Webb DI, Parker L, Webb K. Platelet count assessment from peripheral blood smear (PBS). Alaska Med 2004;46:92-5.

Bakhubaira S. Automated versus manual platelet count in Aden. J Clin Exp Pathol 2013;3:3.

Oliveira RA, Takadachi MM, Nonoyama K, Barretto OC. Is automated platelet counting still a problem in thrombocytopenic blood? Sao Paulo Med J 2003;121:19-23.

Anjali SA, Amy S. Platelet function disorder. In: Schulman S, editor. Treatment of Haemophilia. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell: World Federation of Hemophilia; 2008. p. 1-3.

Brecher G, Schneiderman M, Cronkite EP. The reproducibility and constancy of the platelet count. Am J Clin Pathol 1953;23:15-26.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2014 International Journal of Medical Science Research and Practice. All rights reserved. Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.