Bentley S A, Johnson A, Bishop C A
Department of Pathology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Am J Clin Pathol. 1993 Dec;100(6):626-32. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/100.6.626.
A parallel evaluation was performed on four automated hematology analyzers: the Celldyn 3000 (Unipath Corp., Mountain View, CA), the Coulter STKS (Coulter Electronics Inc., Hialeah, FL), the Sysmex NE-8000 (Baxter Healthcare Corp., McGaw Park, IL), and the Technicon H*2 (Miles Corp., Tarrytown, NY). The protocol included evaluation of the complete blood count and differential leukocyte count (DLC) parameters. The DLC evaluation was performed using the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Studies H20-A protocol. Based on this evaluation, the authors could not identify a single instrument that was clearly superior to the others. Overall, the four instruments were found to be safe and effective for diagnostic use; however, there were areas in which their performance was less than optimal. Particular questions were raised regarding the clinical usefulness of instrumental "flags" to identify qualitative leukocyte abnormalities. The results are discussed in relation to the selection of instruments for specific clinical applications.
赛迪昂3000（Unipath公司，加利福尼亚州山景城）、库尔特STKS（库尔特电子公司，佛罗里达州海厄利亚）、希森美康NE - 8000（百特医疗保健公司，伊利诺伊州麦高公园）和Technicon H*2（迈尔斯公司，纽约州塔里敦）。该方案包括对全血细胞计数和白细胞分类计数（DLC）参数的评估。DLC评估采用美国国家临床实验室研究委员会H20 - A方案。基于此评估，作者无法确定哪一台仪器明显优于其他仪器。总体而言，发现这四台仪器用于诊断是安全有效的；然而，在某些方面它们的性能并非最佳。关于仪器“标记”识别白细胞定性异常的临床实用性提出了特别的问题。结合特定临床应用中仪器的选择对结果进行了讨论。
