A comparison study between the Siemens ADVIA 120 and manual method for the differential white blood cell count in goats

IF 1.2 4区农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES Veterinary clinical pathology Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1111/vcp.13337

Ioannis L. Oikonomidis, Christos Brozos, Theodora K. Tsouloufi, Evangelos Kiossis, Maria Kritsepi-Konstantinou

{"title":"A comparison study between the Siemens ADVIA 120 and manual method for the differential white blood cell count in goats","authors":"Ioannis L. Oikonomidis, Christos Brozos, Theodora K. Tsouloufi, Evangelos Kiossis, Maria Kritsepi-Konstantinou","doi":"10.1111/vcp.13337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Although widely used, the ADVIA 120 hematology analyzer has not been previously validated for determining the differential leukocyte count in goats.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Forty samples were included after previously excluding eight samples. The correlation between the A-Diff and M-Diff was very strong for eosinophils (<i>r</i> = .870, <i>p</i> < .001) and strong for lymphocytes (<i>r</i> = .796, <i>p</i> < .001) and neutrophils (<i>r</i> = .730, <i>p</i> < .001), while no significant correlation was observed for monocytes (<i>r</i> = .026, <i>p</i> = .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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":23593,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary clinical pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/vcp.13337","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary clinical pathology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/vcp.13337","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

西门子 ADVIA 120 与人工方法在山羊白细胞计数差异方面的比较研究。

背景：尽管 ADVIA 120 血液分析仪已被广泛使用，但其在测定山羊白细胞差值方面尚未得到验证：本研究的目的是比较 ADVIA 120（A-diff）和人工方法（M-Diff）在山羊体内提供的白细胞差异计数：研究使用在采集后 4 小时内进行分析的 EDTA 血液样本。采用的排除标准如下：试管填充不当或试管中含有血块、ADVIA 过氧化物酶细胞图谱有误、血液涂片质量差。由两名独立观察员对 200 个白细胞进行 A-Diff 与 M-Diff 比较：结果：在排除了 8 个样本后，共纳入了 40 个样本。在嗜酸性粒细胞方面，A-Diff 和 M-Diff 之间的相关性非常强（r = .870，p 结论：ADVIA 120 整体上表现出了很高的准确性：在本研究的条件下，ADVIA 120 在山羊白细胞计数方面总体表现良好。因此，可以认为它适用于山羊的常规血液学筛查。不过，需要强调的是，任何异常结果都应通过血液涂片评估来确认。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Veterinary clinical pathology 农林科学-兽医学

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

16.70%

发文量

133

审稿时长

18-36 weeks

期刊介绍： Veterinary Clinical Pathology is the official journal of the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) and the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ESVCP). The journal''s mission is to provide an international forum for communication and discussion of scientific investigations and new developments that advance the art and science of laboratory diagnosis in animals. Veterinary Clinical Pathology welcomes original experimental research and clinical contributions involving domestic, laboratory, avian, and wildlife species in the areas of hematology, hemostasis, immunopathology, clinical chemistry, cytopathology, surgical pathology, toxicology, endocrinology, laboratory and analytical techniques, instrumentation, quality assurance, and clinical pathology education.