Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2025
Comprehensive & Cost Effective Laboratory Monitoring of HIV/AIDS: an African Role Model
Published on: October 31, 2010
A comparison study between the Siemens ADVIA 120 and manual method for the differential white blood cell count in
Ioannis L Oikonomidis1,2, Christos Brozos3, Theodora K Tsouloufi2
1Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Physiology and Pathology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Studies, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Background:
Although widely used, the ADVIA 120 hematology analyzer has not been previously validated for determining the differential leukocyte count in goats.
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to compare the differential leukocyte counts provided by the ADVIA 120 (A-diff) and the manual method (M-Diff) in goats.
Methods:
EDTA blood samples that were analyzed within 4 h of collection were used in the study. The following exclusion criteria were applied: inappropriately filled tubes or tubes containing clots, erroneous ADVIA peroxidase cytograms, and blood smears of poor quality. The A-Diff was compared with the M-Diff performed by two independent observers on 200 leukocytes.
Results:
Forty samples were included after previously excluding eight samples. The correlation between the A-Diff and M-Diff was very strong for eosinophils (r = .870, p < .001) and strong for lymphocytes (r = .796, p < .001) and neutrophils (r = .730, p < .001), while no significant correlation was observed for monocytes (r = .026, p = .872). The Passing-Bablok regression analyses revealed statistically significant constant errors for neutrophils (5.83%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41%, 12.18%) and eosinophils (1.89%; 95% CI: 1.17%, 2.71%). Bland-Altman analyses showed a statistically significant negative bias for lymphocytes (-5.0%) and a statistically significant positive bias for eosinophils (2.2%). The very low basophil percentages precluded a meaningful method comparison.
Conclusions:
The ADVIA 120 overall demonstrated good performance for the differential WBC count in goats under the conditions of this study. Therefore, it can be considered suitable for routine hematologic screening in goats. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that any abnormal result should be confirmed with a blood smear evaluation.
