Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting.
Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting.
复制标题
DOI：
10.4103/2153-3539.133127
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Shabani-Rad MT
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mahe ER;Higa D;Naugler C;Mansoor A;Shabani-Rad MT
许多血液学实验室已采用半自动化数字平台进行日常使用，并且支持其使用的证据正在增加。 CellaVision 平台是研究最深入的数字血液学平台之一；我们希望确定 CellaVision 网织红细胞计数的准确性。我们比较了使用 Beckman Coulter LH750 自动分析仪和 CellaVision DM96 平台手动执行的网织红细胞计数。我们分析了成对相关性、偏差和精度的结果。使用社会科学统计软件（SPSS）进行分析，包括 Spearman 的 rho 相关系数、Friedman 的双向方差分析（ANOVA）以比较分布；通过平均值和标准差来比较偏差。 CellaVision 网织红细胞计数与分析仪的计数相关性最强（通常被认为是基准测试）；注意到所有三种方法中网织红细胞计数分布彼此没有显着差异。在 CellaVision 和 LH750 计数比较中，偏差的平均值和标准偏差最低。我们的数据为使用 CellaVision DM96 平台的数字血液学应用的准确性提供了额外的支持。
Many hematology laboratories have adopted semi-automated digital platforms for routine use and the evidence supporting their use is increasing. The CellaVision platforms are among the most thoroughly studied digital hematology platforms; we wished to determine the accuracy of CellaVision for reticulocyte counting. We compared reticulocyte counts performed manually, using the Beckman Coulter LH750 automated analyzer and with the CellaVision DM96 platform. We analyzed the results for pair-wise correlation and bias, and precision. Analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS), including Spearman's rho correlation coefficient, Friedman's two-way Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) for comparison of distributions; bias was compared by way of mean and standard deviation. The CellaVision reticulocyte counts correlated most strongly with those of the analyzer (often considered the benchmark test); the reticulocyte count distributions were noted not to be significantly different from each other across all three methods. The mean and standard deviation of bias were lowest in the comparison of CellaVision and LH750 counts. Our data provide additional support for the accuracy of digital hematology applications using the CellaVision DM96 platform.