Verification of Atellica 1500 and comparison with Iris urine analyser and urine culture.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Biochemia Medica Pub Date : 2022-02-15 Epub Date: 2021-12-15 DOI:10.11613/BM.2022.010701
Ana Nikler, Helena Čičak, Danijela Bejuk, Vanja Radišić Biljak, Ana-Maria Šimundić
{"title":"Verification of Atellica 1500 and comparison with Iris urine analyser and urine culture.","authors":"Ana Nikler,&nbsp;Helena Čičak,&nbsp;Danijela Bejuk,&nbsp;Vanja Radišić Biljak,&nbsp;Ana-Maria Šimundić","doi":"10.11613/BM.2022.010701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aims of study were to assess: 1) performance specifications of Atellica 1500, 2) comparability of Atellica 1500 and Iris, 3) the accuracy of both analysers in their ability to detect bacteria.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Carryover, linearity, precision, reproducibility, and limit of blank (LoB) verification were evaluated for erythrocyte and leukocyte counts. ICSH 2014 protocol was used for estimation of carryover, CLSI EP15-A3 for precision, and CLSI EP17 for LoB verification. Comparison for quantitative parameters was evaluated by Bland-Altman plot and Passing-Bablok regression. Qualitative parameters were evaluated by Weighted kappa analysis. Sixty-five urine samples were randomly selected and sent for urine culture which was used as reference method to determine the accuracy of bacteria detection by analysers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analytical specifications of Atellica 1500 were successfully verified. Total of 393 samples were used for qualitative comparison, while 269 for sediment urinalysis. Bland-Altman analysis showed statistically significant proportional bias for erythrocytes and leukocytes. Passing-Bablok analysis for leukocytes pointed to significant constant and minor proportional difference, while it was not performed for erythrocytes due to significant data deviation from linearity. Kappa analysis resulted in the strongest agreements for pH, ketones, glucose concentrations and leukocytes, while the poorest agreement for bacteria. The sensitivity and specificity of bacteria detection were: 91 (59-100)% and 76 (66-87)% for Atellica 1500 and 46 (17-77)% and 96 (87-100)% for Iris.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are large differences between Atellica 1500 and Iris analysers, due to which they are not comparable and can not be used interchangeably. While there was no difference in specificity of bacteria detection, Iris analyser had greater sensitivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":9021,"journal":{"name":"Biochemia Medica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8672386/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biochemia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2022.010701","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: The aims of study were to assess: 1) performance specifications of Atellica 1500, 2) comparability of Atellica 1500 and Iris, 3) the accuracy of both analysers in their ability to detect bacteria.

Materials and methods: Carryover, linearity, precision, reproducibility, and limit of blank (LoB) verification were evaluated for erythrocyte and leukocyte counts. ICSH 2014 protocol was used for estimation of carryover, CLSI EP15-A3 for precision, and CLSI EP17 for LoB verification. Comparison for quantitative parameters was evaluated by Bland-Altman plot and Passing-Bablok regression. Qualitative parameters were evaluated by Weighted kappa analysis. Sixty-five urine samples were randomly selected and sent for urine culture which was used as reference method to determine the accuracy of bacteria detection by analysers.

Results: Analytical specifications of Atellica 1500 were successfully verified. Total of 393 samples were used for qualitative comparison, while 269 for sediment urinalysis. Bland-Altman analysis showed statistically significant proportional bias for erythrocytes and leukocytes. Passing-Bablok analysis for leukocytes pointed to significant constant and minor proportional difference, while it was not performed for erythrocytes due to significant data deviation from linearity. Kappa analysis resulted in the strongest agreements for pH, ketones, glucose concentrations and leukocytes, while the poorest agreement for bacteria. The sensitivity and specificity of bacteria detection were: 91 (59-100)% and 76 (66-87)% for Atellica 1500 and 46 (17-77)% and 96 (87-100)% for Iris.

Conclusion: There are large differences between Atellica 1500 and Iris analysers, due to which they are not comparable and can not be used interchangeably. While there was no difference in specificity of bacteria detection, Iris analyser had greater sensitivity.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Atellica 1500的验证及与Iris尿液分析仪和尿液培养的比较。
本研究的目的是评估:1)Atellica 1500的性能指标,2)Atellica 1500和Iris的可比性,3)两种分析仪检测细菌能力的准确性。材料和方法:对红细胞和白细胞计数的结转、线性、精密度、重现性和空白(LoB)验证限进行了评价。结转估计采用ICSH 2014协议,精度采用CLSI EP15-A3协议,LoB验证采用CLSI EP17协议。定量参数比较采用Bland-Altman图和Passing-Bablok回归。采用加权kappa分析法对定性参数进行评价。随机抽取65份尿液样本进行尿液培养,作为参考方法,以确定分析仪检测细菌的准确性。结果:成功验证了Atellica 1500的分析规范。共有393份样本用于定性比较,269份样本用于沉积物分析。Bland-Altman分析显示红细胞和白细胞的比例偏倚具有统计学意义。白细胞的pass - bablok分析显示有显著的常数和较小的比例差异,而红细胞由于数据明显偏离线性而未进行pass - bablok分析。Kappa分析结果表明,pH值、酮类、葡萄糖浓度和白细胞的一致性最强,而细菌的一致性最差。细菌检测的灵敏度和特异度分别为:Atellica 1500的91(59 ~ 100)%和76 (66 ~ 87)%,Iris的46(17 ~ 77)%和96(87 ~ 100)%。结论:Atellica 1500型分析仪与Iris型分析仪存在较大差异,不具有可比性,不能互换使用。细菌检测的特异性没有差异,但虹膜分析仪的灵敏度更高。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Biochemia Medica
Biochemia Medica 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biochemia Medica is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Journal provides a wide coverage of research in all aspects of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. Following categories fit into the scope of the Journal: general clinical chemistry, haematology and haemostasis, molecular diagnostics and endocrinology. Development, validation and verification of analytical techniques and methods applicable to clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine are welcome as well as studies dealing with laboratory organization, automation and quality control. Journal publishes on a regular basis educative preanalytical case reports (Preanalytical mysteries), articles dealing with applied biostatistics (Lessons in biostatistics) and research integrity (Research integrity corner).
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信