Related Experiment Videos
Automated haematology analysers: a four-way comparison.
B A Warner1, D M Reardon, D P Marshall
1Department of Haematology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, England, UK.
Medical Laboratory Sciences
|October 1, 1990
Summary
This study evaluated four automated hematology analyzers, finding that while most parameters compared well, variations in mean cell volume (MCV) and monocyte counts were noted. The Sysmex NE8000 and Coulter STKS offered faster, user-friendly operation compared to the Technicon H1.
Area of Science:
- Clinical laboratory science
- Hematology
- Medical technology evaluation
Background:
- Automated hematology analyzers are crucial for efficient blood cell counting.
- Evaluating new instruments is essential for maintaining diagnostic accuracy and workflow efficiency.
- Comparative studies help identify optimal analyzers for clinical settings.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the operational and quantitative performance of four automated hematology analyzers: Coulter S + IV, Coulter STKS, Sysmex NE8000, and Technicon H1.
- To assess the accuracy of various blood count parameters, including red cell, white cell, and platelet counts, MCV, hematocrit, and hemoglobin.
- To evaluate the performance of white cell differential parameters and the stability of samples over time.
Main Methods:
- Comparative evaluation of four automated hematology analyzers.
- Analysis of key blood count parameters: red cell, white cell, platelet counts, MCV, hematocrit, and hemoglobin.
- Validation of white cell differential counts against manual methods.
- Assessment of analyzer performance with K2EDTA-stored samples up to 18 hours.
Main Results:
- Most measured blood count parameters showed good correlation with the Coulter S + IV, with MCV exhibiting the most variation.
- Neutrophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils correlated well with manual differentials; mononuclear and monocyte counts showed discrepancies.
- The Coulter STKS, Sysmex NE8000, and Technicon H1 provided acceptable five-cell differentials from samples stored for 18 hours, though NE8000 monocyte counts varied.
- The STKS and NE8000 were faster and easier to use in automated mode than the H1.
Conclusions:
- Automated hematology analyzers demonstrate varying degrees of accuracy for specific parameters, necessitating careful selection based on clinical needs.
- While most core parameters are reliably measured, attention should be paid to potential variations in MCV and specific white blood cell differentials.
- The Sysmex NE8000 and Coulter STKS offer significant advantages in speed and ease of use for automated operation.
- Instrument choice should balance quantitative accuracy, operational efficiency, and sample stability requirements.