Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 3, 2026
Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Testing Analyzer for Measuring Peripheral Blood Leukocytes
Published on: March 22, 2022
Objective evaluation of analyzer performance based on a retrospective meta-analysis of instrument validation studies:
Andrea M Cook1, Andreas Moritz1, Kathleen P Freeman2
1Department of Clinical Sciences, Clinical Pathophysiology and Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University Gießen, Gießen, Germany.
Background:
Information on quality requirements and objective evaluation of performance of veterinary point-of-care analyzers (POCAs) is scarce.
Objectives:
The study was aimed at assessing observed total errors (TEobs s) for veterinary hematology POCAs via meta-analysis and comparing TEobs to allowable total error (TEa ) specifications based on experts' opinions.
Methods:
The TEobs for POCAs (impedance and laser-based) was calculated based on data from instrument validation studies published between 2006 and 2013 as follows: TEobs = 2 × CV [%] + bias [%]. The CV was taken from published studies; the bias was estimated from the regression equation at 2 different concentration levels of measurands. To fulfill quality requirements, TEobs should be < TEa . Measurands were considered as globally acceptable if > 60% of analyzers showed TEobs < TEa .
Results:
Six studies evaluating 11 analyzers and 5 studies evaluating 5 analyzers were included for canine and feline hematology variables, respectively. For the CBC, TEobs was < 15% for canine and < 13% for feline measurands, except for HGB and platelet counts. Measurands of the CBC, excluding differential WBC and platelet counts, and HGB concentration were considered globally acceptable. For most of the cell types in the WBC differential count, TEobs was > TEa (data from 3 analyzers).
Conclusion:
This meta-analysis is considered a pilot study. Experts' requirements (TEobs < TEa ) were fulfilled for most measurands except HGB (due to instrument-related bias for the ADVIA 2120) and platelet counts. Available data on the WBC differential count suggest an analytic bias, so nonstatistical quality control is recommended.
