Cennamo Michele, Giuliano Loredana, Arrigoni Gloria, Fardone Valentina, Russo Roberta, De Tomasi Luca Maria, Bertani Fabio, Cammarota Gaetano, Brunetti Giovanni, Del Vecchio Lucia, Partenope Michelarcangelo
Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", 80126 Naples, Italy.
Clinical Pathology and Microbiology Unit, Laboratory Analysis, ASST Lariana, Hospital Sant'Anna, 22100 Como, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2024 Feb 1;13(3):847. doi: 10.3390/jcm13030847.
: The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is a routine and aspecific test that is still widely used. The reference-manual method for ESR determination is the Westergren method. The VES-MATIC 5 is a novel, fully automated, and closed system based on a modified Westergren method. This study conceived the aim of comparing two ESR analytical analysers, Test 1 and the VES-MATIC 5, with the reference method in routine practice. : This study included 264 randomly analysed samples. A comparison between the two methods and Westergren was performed, and they were evaluated for inter-run and intra-run precision. In addition, we investigated possible interferences and different sensitivities to conventional analytes. : The comparison of methods by Passing-Bablok analysis provided a good agreement for both systems, with a better correlation for VES-MATIC 5 ( = 0.96) than Test 1 ( = 0.93), and sensitivity studies did not show any significant influence. : The VES-MATIC 5 analyser demonstrated excellent comparability with the reference method, and it had better performance than Test 1. It can be employed in routine practice, bringing advantages such as a reduction in the probability of human error compared to the manual method, as well as an increase in operator safety and environmental protection.
红细胞沉降率(ESR)是一项仍被广泛使用的常规非特异性检测。ESR测定的参考手册方法是魏氏法。VES-MATIC 5是一种基于改良魏氏法的新型全自动封闭系统。本研究旨在比较两种ESR分析仪器,即Test 1和VES-MATIC 5,与常规实践中的参考方法。
本研究纳入了264个随机分析的样本。对两种方法与魏氏法进行了比较,并评估了它们的批间和批内精密度。此外,我们还研究了可能的干扰以及对常规分析物的不同敏感性。
通过Passing-Bablok分析进行的方法比较显示,两种系统的一致性都很好,VES-MATIC 5的相关性更好(r = 0.96),高于Test 1(r = 0.93),敏感性研究未显示任何显著影响。
VES-MATIC 5分析仪与参考方法具有出色的可比性,并且其性能优于Test 1。它可用于常规实践,与手工方法相比具有减少人为误差概率、提高操作人员安全性和环境保护等优点。