4 192

Cited 11 times in

Comparison study of the rates of manual peripheral blood smear review from 3 automated hematology analyzers, Unicel DxH 800, ADVIA 2120i, and XE 2100, using international consensus group guidelines

 Sue Jung Kim  ;  Yoonjung Kim  ;  Saeam Shin  ;  Jaewoo Song  ;  Jong Rak Choi 
 Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Vol.136(11) : 1408-1413, 2012 
Journal Title
 Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 
Issue Date
CONTEXT: In the clinical laboratory, it is important both to reduce the number of peripheral blood slide reviews to save time and money and to avoid reporting false results. OBJECTIVE: To determine differences in the slide review rates of 3 widely used automated hematologic analyzers, the Unicel DxH 800 (Beckman Coulter Inc, Fullerton, California), ADVIA 2120i (Siemens Diagnostics, Tarrytown, New York), and XE 2100 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan), using International Consensus Group for Hematology Review guidelines. DESIGN: A total of 1485 samples were tested, and 300 were manually reviewed. Slide review rates, sensitivity, specificity, and false-positive and false-negative rates were estimated using consensus group rules and compared using χ(2) tests, Fisher exact tests, or generalized estimating equations. ResultS: Unicel DxH 800, ADVIA 2120i, and XE 2100 showed 22.8%, 20.2%, and 28.6% slide review rates; 14.3%, 14.3%, and 9.7% false-negative rates; and 13.7, 11.3%, and 17.3% false-positive rates, respectively. All analyzers showed significantly higher false-negative rates than that of the consensus group (2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: False-negative rates were higher than the recommended levels. Among 3 automated hematologic analyzers, XE 2100 showed the highest rate of slide review. Because the present study clearly shows that the slide review rates have distinct characteristics among the studied analyzers, each individual laboratory should consider selecting the most appropriate analyzer according to clinical characteristics. Analyzers with high sensitivity may be advantageous in outpatient settings for screening patients, whereas analyzers with high specificity may be beneficial in inpatient settings for efficient patient care.
Full Text
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Laboratory Medicine (진단검사의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kim, Sue Jeong(김수정)
Kim, Yoon Jung(김윤정) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4370-4265
Song, Jae Woo(송재우) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1877-5731
Choi, Jong Rak(최종락) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0608-2989
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
사서에게 알리기


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.