Gisselø C G, Roer O, Hoffmann M H, Hansen M B, Taaning E, Johnsen H E
Stem Cell Laboratory, Department of Haematology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark.
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002 Apr;29(8):699-703. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703514.
Prior to replacement of an established method for CD34 enumeration by an alternative approach, evaluation of the agreement between the methods is essential. In this study, the comparison of two assays was evaluated according to the recommendation of Bland and Altman describing the agreement between two methods where the true value is not known. CD34 enumeration was performed on blood or leukapheresis product from 105 patients by flow cytometry (dual platform assay) and volumetric analysis (single platform assay). Both the flow cytometric and the volumetric analysis showed poor reproducibility for measures lower than approximately 9 CD34+ cells/mm3. For values higher than 29 CD34+ cells/mm3, evaluation of the agreement demonstrated a difference between the single and dual platform assay, where CD34 enumeration by the volumetric analysis demonstrated values 73-80% of the flow cytometric value. The difference between the two assays could be due to several technical pitfalls which are discussed.
在用替代方法取代已确立的CD34计数方法之前,评估两种方法之间的一致性至关重要。在本研究中,根据Bland和Altman的建议对两种检测方法进行了比较,该建议描述了在真实值未知的情况下两种方法之间的一致性。通过流式细胞术(双平台检测)和体积分析(单平台检测)对105例患者的血液或白细胞分离产物进行CD34计数。流式细胞术和体积分析对于低于约9个CD34+细胞/mm3的测量均显示出较差的重复性。对于高于29个CD34+细胞/mm3的值,一致性评估表明单平台检测和双平台检测之间存在差异,其中体积分析的CD34计数显示的值为流式细胞术值的73-80%。两种检测方法之间的差异可能归因于几个技术陷阱,本文对此进行了讨论。