Nelson L, Charache S, Wingfield S, Keyser E
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland.
Am J Clin Pathol. 1989 May;91(5):563-9. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/91.5.563.
Automated differential counts produced by the Coulter S-Plus IV (S + 4) and the Technicon H-1 (H-1) were compared with routine and reference manual differentials with the use of samples from the adult emergency room (ER) and the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), populations in which rapid reporting of laboratory results is considered important. Error rates for routine technologists were 9.3% in the ER and 15.3% in the NICU. Error rates for the two instruments were higher than those for technologists with samples from the ER but could be reduced to 4-5% if instrument flags and additional criteria were used to signal the need for a conventional differential. Instrument error rates were higher yet with NICU samples, and specificity was very low (10% for each device). There were small differences between the instruments in detection of immature neutrophils, but flags from the H-1 were more specific (except for detection of nucleated red blood cells in samples from the ER). If either instrument were used in an adult ER and flags and additional criteria were used to signal the need for conventional differentials, 64-75% fewer manual counts would be performed with no decrease in accuracy and a considerable improvement in turnaround time.
使用成人急诊室(ER)和新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)的样本,将库尔特S-Plus IV(S + 4)和Technicon H-1(H-1)产生的自动分类计数结果与常规和参考手工分类计数结果进行比较,这两个科室都认为快速报告实验室结果很重要。常规技术人员在急诊室的错误率为9.3%,在新生儿重症监护病房为15.3%。使用急诊室样本时,这两种仪器的错误率高于技术人员,但如果使用仪器标记和其他标准来提示需要进行传统分类计数,则错误率可降至4%-5%。使用新生儿重症监护病房样本时,仪器错误率更高,特异性非常低(每种设备为10%)。两种仪器在检测未成熟中性粒细胞方面存在细微差异,但H-1的标记更具特异性(急诊室样本中检测有核红细胞除外)。如果在成人急诊室使用任何一种仪器,并使用标记和其他标准来提示需要进行传统分类计数,手工计数将减少64%-75%,而准确性不会降低,周转时间将显著缩短。