Yasemin Üstündağ, Kağan Huysal, Elif Güler Kazancı, F. Yıldırım, Meryem Rümeysa Yeşil
{"title":"Use of Mindray MC-80 digital morphology analyzer’s estimated platelet counts as adjunct to automated hematology analyzer","authors":"Yasemin Üstündağ, Kağan Huysal, Elif Güler Kazancı, F. Yıldırım, Meryem Rümeysa Yeşil","doi":"10.5603/ahp.a2023.0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Automated hematology analyzer platelet counts can be performed using either the impedance (PLT-I) method or the fluorescent nucleic acid staining (PLT-O) method. Estimated platelet counts (PLT-E) can be calculated using a digital morphology analyzer by evaluating the peripheral blood smear. Our objective was to compare the platelet values detected on a Mindray BC-6200 device to the PLT-E count on a Mindray MC-80 digital morphology analyzer. Material and methods: Complete blood cell count findings between 1 September and 11 October, 2022 were obtained from the data storage units of the devices. We selected two groups of blood: a first group with thrombocytopenia (n = 49) and a second group that gave an aggregation and/or platelet clumping flag (n = 32). The results of 190 consecutive patients with normal platelet counts, and no aggregation flag, were evaluated as a control group. Pearson’s correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and paired t-tests were calculated. Results: The plot of the difference between PLT-I and PLT-O counts showed that the mean difference was –43.6 (95%: –17.2 to –69.9); when we compared PLT-O to PLT-E, bias was","PeriodicalId":35805,"journal":{"name":"Acta Haematologica Polonica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Haematologica Polonica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/ahp.a2023.0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Automated hematology analyzer platelet counts can be performed using either the impedance (PLT-I) method or the fluorescent nucleic acid staining (PLT-O) method. Estimated platelet counts (PLT-E) can be calculated using a digital morphology analyzer by evaluating the peripheral blood smear. Our objective was to compare the platelet values detected on a Mindray BC-6200 device to the PLT-E count on a Mindray MC-80 digital morphology analyzer. Material and methods: Complete blood cell count findings between 1 September and 11 October, 2022 were obtained from the data storage units of the devices. We selected two groups of blood: a first group with thrombocytopenia (n = 49) and a second group that gave an aggregation and/or platelet clumping flag (n = 32). The results of 190 consecutive patients with normal platelet counts, and no aggregation flag, were evaluated as a control group. Pearson’s correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and paired t-tests were calculated. Results: The plot of the difference between PLT-I and PLT-O counts showed that the mean difference was –43.6 (95%: –17.2 to –69.9); when we compared PLT-O to PLT-E, bias was