Suppr超能文献

比较 Abbott Sapphire、Siemens Advia 120、Beckman Coulter DxH 800 和 Sysmex XE-2100 对正常和病理样本的自动血细胞计数结果。

Comparison of automated differential blood cell counts from Abbott Sapphire, Siemens Advia 120, Beckman Coulter DxH 800, and Sysmex XE-2100 in normal and pathologic samples.

机构信息

Medizinische Klinik 5, Hämatologie & Internistische Onkologie, Erlangen, Germany.

出版信息

Am J Clin Pathol. 2013 May;139(5):641-50. doi: 10.1309/AJCP7D8ECZRXGWCG.

Abstract

Reliable automated blood cell characterization and quantification remain challenging in pathologic samples, whereas slide reviews due to unnecessary flagging should be avoided. We compared 4 modern hematology analyzers-Abbott Sapphire, Siemens Advia 120, Sysmex XE-2100, and Beckman Coulter DxH 800-regarding complete blood cell count (CBC), leukocyte differential count, and flagging efficacy in a total of 202 samples from hematology patients and normal controls. Manual differential count was used as reference. The analyzers exhibited very good correlation for CBC parameters. Neutrophils and eosinophils also showed very good correlations, whereas lymphocytes and monocytes correlated fairly. The Advia 120 displayed notably lower measurements for both parameters, which is attributable to classification of some events as large unstained cells. Basophil counts were unreliable with all analyzers. Flagging for blasts and immature granulocytes showed moderate sensitivity and specificity. Operators must not rely on blast flagging alone to detect leukemic samples with any analyzer.

摘要

在病理样本中,可靠的自动血细胞特征和定量分析仍然具有挑战性,而应避免由于不必要的标记导致的玻片复查。我们比较了 4 种现代血液分析仪——雅培 Sapphire、西门子 Advia 120、希森美康 XE-2100 和贝克曼库尔特 DxH 800——共计 202 份血液病患者和正常对照样本的全血细胞计数(CBC)、白细胞分类计数和标记效果。采用手动分类计数作为参考。这些分析仪在 CBC 参数方面具有非常好的相关性。中性粒细胞和嗜酸性粒细胞也具有非常好的相关性,而淋巴细胞和单核细胞相关性则相当。由于将一些事件归类为大未染色细胞,Advia 120 对这两个参数的测量值明显较低。所有分析仪的嗜碱性粒细胞计数均不可靠。对原始细胞和未成熟粒细胞的标记具有中等的灵敏度和特异性。操作人员在使用任何分析仪时,都不能仅凭原始细胞标记来检测白血病样本。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验