Suppr超能文献

兔的白细胞分类计数: ADVIA 2120 与手动方法的比较。

Differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the Advia 2120 and a manual method.

机构信息

Easter Bush Pathology, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK.

出版信息

J Vet Diagn Invest. 2021 Jul;33(4):670-676. doi: 10.1177/10406387211007877. Epub 2021 Apr 9.

Abstract

We evaluated the performance of the Advia 2120 (Siemens) differential leukocyte count (A-Diff) compared to the manual method (M-Diff) in rabbits. EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples collected for diagnostic purposes were analyzed within 6 h of collection. The M-Diff was performed blindly by 2 observers on blood smears by counting 200 cells. We initially included 117 samples; 25 samples were excluded because of suboptimal gating of leukocytes in the Advia peroxidase cytogram or poor blood smear quality. The correlation between the A-Diff and M-Diff was very high for heterophils (r = 0.924,  < 0.001) and lymphocytes (r = 0.903,  < 0.001), high for basophils (r = 0.823,  < 0.001), moderate for monocytes (r = 0.645,  < 0.001), and low for eosinophils (r = 0.336,  = 0.001). The Passing-Bablok regression analyses revealed a small-to-moderate constant error for lymphocytes and a slight constant error for basophils. Small proportional errors were detected for heterophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils. The Bland-Altman analyses revealed that the Advia significantly underestimates heterophils and overestimates lymphocytes compared to M-Diff. The biases for the other leukocytes were minimal and likely clinical insignificant; however, our results, particularly for eosinophils, should be interpreted cautiously given the observed low percentages in our samples. Given the observed biases in heterophil and lymphocyte percentages in the Advia 2120 CBC results in rabbits, method-specific reference intervals should be used. The Advia can recognize leporine basophils. Evaluation of blood smears is still recommended to investigate abnormal results and erroneous cytograms reported by the Advia.

摘要

我们评估了 Advia 2120(西门子)白细胞分类计数(A-Diff)与手工方法(M-Diff)在兔子中的性能。采集用于诊断目的的 EDTA 抗凝血液样本,并在采集后 6 小时内进行分析。M-Diff 由 2 名观察者在血液涂片上进行盲法检测,计数 200 个细胞。我们最初纳入了 117 个样本;由于 Advia 过氧化物酶细胞图中白细胞门控不佳或血涂片质量差,有 25 个样本被排除。A-Diff 与 M-Diff 之间的相关性对于嗜中性粒细胞(r=0.924,<0.001)和淋巴细胞(r=0.903,<0.001)非常高,对于嗜碱性粒细胞(r=0.823,<0.001)较高,对于单核细胞(r=0.645,<0.001)中度,对于嗜酸性粒细胞(r=0.336,=0.001)较低。Passing-Bablok 回归分析显示,淋巴细胞的恒定误差较小,嗜碱性粒细胞的恒定误差略大。嗜中性粒细胞、淋巴细胞和嗜酸性粒细胞的比例误差较小。Bland-Altman 分析显示,与 M-Diff 相比,Advia 显著低估了嗜中性粒细胞,高估了淋巴细胞。其他白细胞的偏差最小,可能临床意义不大;然而,鉴于我们样本中观察到的低百分比,特别是对于嗜酸性粒细胞,我们的结果应谨慎解释。鉴于兔子 Advia 2120 CBC 结果中嗜中性粒细胞和淋巴细胞百分比的观察到的偏差,应使用特定方法的参考区间。Advia 可以识别兔类嗜碱性粒细胞。仍建议评估血涂片,以调查 Advia 报告的异常结果和错误的细胞图谱。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c74a/8229826/63a9c73db21e/10.1177_10406387211007877-fig1.jpg

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