Search

Introduction Recent automated hematology analyzers (HAs) can identify and report nucleated red blood cells (NRBC) count as a separate population out of white blood cells (WBC). The aim of this study was to investigate the analytical performances of NRBC enumeration on five top of the range HAs. Methods We evaluated the within-run and between-day precision, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), and limit of quantitation (LoQ) of XE-2100 and XN-module (Sysmex), ADVIA 2120i (Siemens), BC-6800 (Mindray), and UniCel DxH 800 (Beckman Coulter). Automated NRBC counts were also compared with optical microscopy (OM). Results The limits of detection for NRBC of the BC-6800, XN-module, XE-2100, UniCel DxH 800, and ADVIA 2120i are 0.035×109/L, 0.019×109/L, 0.067×109/L, 0.038×109/L, and 0.167×109/L, respectively. Our data indicated excellent performance in terms of precision. The agreement with OM was excellent for BC-6800, XN-module, and XE-2100 (Bias 0.023, 0.019, and 0.033×109/L, respectively). ADVIA 2120i displayed a significant constant error and UniCel DxH 800 both proportional and small constant error. Conclusion Regards to NRBC counting, the performances shown by BC-6800, XN-module, and XE-2100 are excellent also a low count, ADVIA 2120i and UniCel DxH 800 need to be improved.

Background The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of blood smear review criteria, by means of three different panel rules, those proposed by: the International Consensus Group for Hematology [41-ICGH rules], the Italian Survey [IS rules] and the Working Group on Hematology-SIBioC (WGH) consensus rules (WGH rules). Methods This study is based on 2707 peripheral blood (PB) samples referred for routine hematological testing to the WGH-associated laboratories displaced all over the Italian territory. The PB samples were processed on seven different hematology analyzers (HAs): Advia 2120i, XE-2100, BC-6800, ABX Pentra, XN-1000, Cell-DYN Sapphire, and DxH800, respectively. All the results provided by the HAs were analyzed through the application of three different blood smear review criteria: that is, the 41-ICGH, IS, and WGH rules. Finally, data were compared with those obtained by optical microscopy (OM), as the current gold standard. Results The overall the agreement OM classification with ICGH, IS, and WGH panel rules is 0.83, 0.83, and 0.85, respectively. The false negatives are 2.1%, 3.0%, and 2.9%, while false positives are 15.1%, 13.7%, and 11.7%, respectively. All the seven HAs showed variable interinstrument performance, as three different criteria for OM review were adopted on each of them from time to time. Conclusion These results presented show that the customization of validation rules is necessary for enhancing the quality of hematological testing and optimizing workflow.