Performance evaluation of the automated nucleated red blood cell count of five commercial hematological analyzers.

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.

Comparing the performance of three panels rules of blood smear review criteria on an Italian multicenter evaluation.

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.