评估雅培细胞Dyn 4000自动荧光网织红细胞测量:与手动,FACScan和Sysmex R1000方法的比较。

G d'Onofrio, Y R Kim, S Schulze, T Lorentz, K Dörner, W Goossens, G Zini, M Tommasi, R Kendall, C S Scott
{"title":"评估雅培细胞Dyn 4000自动荧光网织红细胞测量:与手动,FACScan和Sysmex R1000方法的比较。","authors":"G d'Onofrio,&nbsp;Y R Kim,&nbsp;S Schulze,&nbsp;T Lorentz,&nbsp;K Dörner,&nbsp;W Goossens,&nbsp;G Zini,&nbsp;M Tommasi,&nbsp;R Kendall,&nbsp;C S Scott","doi":"10.1046/j.1365-2257.1997.00078.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Abbott Cell Dyn 4000 (CD4000) is the first haematology analyser in which fully-automated reticulocyte measurements can be routinely determined by fluorescence as part of the full blood count. This communication reports the first evaluation of this method which was undertaken by three independent reference laboratories in Belgium, Germany and Italy. A total of 695 different samples was entered into the study which was designed to compare CD4000 reticulocyte information (enumeration and qualitative maturational data) with results determined in parallel with the existing manual (supravital staining) reference procedure, and two semi-automated fluorescent assays (Becton Dickinson FACScan and Sysmex R1000 instruments). These studies revealed good agreement between the CD4000 and the manual procedure, with no inter-method bias. Comparison of CD4000 and FACScan reticulocyte measurements, however, indicated a distinct tendency for the FACScan to give higher reticulocyte estimates than the CD4000. Finally, the comparison of the CD4000 with the Sysmex R1000 showed excellent agreement in the range 0-6% reticulocytes, although there was some inter-method bias in the higher range (> 15%). Analysis of agreement levels between the methods using specific 'clinical decision points' confirmed the tendency for overestimation by the FACScan, in that 58% of the samples with a reticulocytopenia of < 0.5% as defined by the CD4000 gave FACScan results within the normal range (0.5-1.8%). In contrast, there was absolute agreement between the CD4000 and the Sysmex R1000 for all reticulocytopenias. Comparison (195 samples) of instrument fluorescent reticulocyte maturation profiles demonstrated an exponential relationship (r = 0.78) between CD4000 IRF and R1000 HFR (highly fluorescent reticulocyte fraction) values. The suggestion that the CD4000 IRF values includes some of the MFR as well the HFR reticulocyte fraction was confirmed as the correlation between the CD4000 IRF and the Sysmex R1000 MFR plus HFR percentages was linear (r = 0.82). This study confirms a high performance level for the CD4000 automated fluorescent reticulocyte method.</p>","PeriodicalId":10285,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and laboratory haematology","volume":"19 4","pages":"253-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1365-2257.1997.00078.x","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Abbott Cell Dyn 4000 automated fluorescent reticulocyte measurements: comparison with manual, FACScan and Sysmex R1000 methods.\",\"authors\":\"G d'Onofrio,&nbsp;Y R Kim,&nbsp;S Schulze,&nbsp;T Lorentz,&nbsp;K Dörner,&nbsp;W Goossens,&nbsp;G Zini,&nbsp;M Tommasi,&nbsp;R Kendall,&nbsp;C S Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1046/j.1365-2257.1997.00078.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Abbott Cell Dyn 4000 (CD4000) is the first haematology analyser in which fully-automated reticulocyte measurements can be routinely determined by fluorescence as part of the full blood count. This communication reports the first evaluation of this method which was undertaken by three independent reference laboratories in Belgium, Germany and Italy. A total of 695 different samples was entered into the study which was designed to compare CD4000 reticulocyte information (enumeration and qualitative maturational data) with results determined in parallel with the existing manual (supravital staining) reference procedure, and two semi-automated fluorescent assays (Becton Dickinson FACScan and Sysmex R1000 instruments). These studies revealed good agreement between the CD4000 and the manual procedure, with no inter-method bias. Comparison of CD4000 and FACScan reticulocyte measurements, however, indicated a distinct tendency for the FACScan to give higher reticulocyte estimates than the CD4000. Finally, the comparison of the CD4000 with the Sysmex R1000 showed excellent agreement in the range 0-6% reticulocytes, although there was some inter-method bias in the higher range (> 15%). Analysis of agreement levels between the methods using specific 'clinical decision points' confirmed the tendency for overestimation by the FACScan, in that 58% of the samples with a reticulocytopenia of < 0.5% as defined by the CD4000 gave FACScan results within the normal range (0.5-1.8%). In contrast, there was absolute agreement between the CD4000 and the Sysmex R1000 for all reticulocytopenias. Comparison (195 samples) of instrument fluorescent reticulocyte maturation profiles demonstrated an exponential relationship (r = 0.78) between CD4000 IRF and R1000 HFR (highly fluorescent reticulocyte fraction) values. The suggestion that the CD4000 IRF values includes some of the MFR as well the HFR reticulocyte fraction was confirmed as the correlation between the CD4000 IRF and the Sysmex R1000 MFR plus HFR percentages was linear (r = 0.82). This study confirms a high performance level for the CD4000 automated fluorescent reticulocyte method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10285,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and laboratory haematology\",\"volume\":\"19 4\",\"pages\":\"253-60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1365-2257.1997.00078.x\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and laboratory haematology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2257.1997.00078.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and laboratory haematology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2257.1997.00078.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

雅培细胞Dyn 4000 (CD4000)是第一个血液学分析仪,其中全自动网织红细胞测量可以通过荧光常规确定作为全血细胞计数的一部分。本通讯报告了比利时、德国和意大利三个独立参考实验室对该方法进行的第一次评价。共有695个不同的样本被纳入研究,目的是将CD4000网网红细胞信息(计数和定性成熟数据)与现有的手工(上活体染色)参考程序和两种半自动荧光测定(Becton Dickinson FACScan和Sysmex R1000仪器)平行测定的结果进行比较。这些研究显示CD4000和人工程序之间有很好的一致性,没有方法间的偏差。然而,比较CD4000和FACScan的网织红细胞测量结果表明,FACScan给出的网织红细胞估计值明显高于CD4000。最后,CD4000与Sysmex R1000的比较在0-6%的网织红细胞范围内显示出极好的一致性,尽管在较高的范围内存在一些方法间偏差(> 15%)。使用特定“临床决策点”的方法之间的一致性水平分析证实了FACScan高估的趋势,在CD4000定义的网织红细胞减少症< 0.5%的样本中,58%的FACScan结果在正常范围内(0.5-1.8%)。相比之下,CD4000和Sysmex R1000对所有网状红细胞减少症的治疗结果完全一致。比较195个样本的仪器荧光网织红细胞成熟谱,CD4000 IRF和R1000高荧光网织红细胞分数(HFR)值之间呈指数关系(r = 0.78)。CD4000 IRF值包括一些MFR以及HFR网状细胞分数的建议被证实为CD4000 IRF与Sysmex R1000 MFR加HFR百分比之间的相关性是线性的(r = 0.82)。本研究证实了CD4000自动荧光网织红细胞法的高性能水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the Abbott Cell Dyn 4000 automated fluorescent reticulocyte measurements: comparison with manual, FACScan and Sysmex R1000 methods.

The Abbott Cell Dyn 4000 (CD4000) is the first haematology analyser in which fully-automated reticulocyte measurements can be routinely determined by fluorescence as part of the full blood count. This communication reports the first evaluation of this method which was undertaken by three independent reference laboratories in Belgium, Germany and Italy. A total of 695 different samples was entered into the study which was designed to compare CD4000 reticulocyte information (enumeration and qualitative maturational data) with results determined in parallel with the existing manual (supravital staining) reference procedure, and two semi-automated fluorescent assays (Becton Dickinson FACScan and Sysmex R1000 instruments). These studies revealed good agreement between the CD4000 and the manual procedure, with no inter-method bias. Comparison of CD4000 and FACScan reticulocyte measurements, however, indicated a distinct tendency for the FACScan to give higher reticulocyte estimates than the CD4000. Finally, the comparison of the CD4000 with the Sysmex R1000 showed excellent agreement in the range 0-6% reticulocytes, although there was some inter-method bias in the higher range (> 15%). Analysis of agreement levels between the methods using specific 'clinical decision points' confirmed the tendency for overestimation by the FACScan, in that 58% of the samples with a reticulocytopenia of < 0.5% as defined by the CD4000 gave FACScan results within the normal range (0.5-1.8%). In contrast, there was absolute agreement between the CD4000 and the Sysmex R1000 for all reticulocytopenias. Comparison (195 samples) of instrument fluorescent reticulocyte maturation profiles demonstrated an exponential relationship (r = 0.78) between CD4000 IRF and R1000 HFR (highly fluorescent reticulocyte fraction) values. The suggestion that the CD4000 IRF values includes some of the MFR as well the HFR reticulocyte fraction was confirmed as the correlation between the CD4000 IRF and the Sysmex R1000 MFR plus HFR percentages was linear (r = 0.82). This study confirms a high performance level for the CD4000 automated fluorescent reticulocyte method.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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