Xiang D, Yue J, Sha C, Ren S, Li M, Wang C. Performance evaluation of the Mindray BC 6800 hematology analyzer and flag comparison with the XE-2100 and manual microscopy. Clin Lab 65. doi: . [Epub ahead of print].CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar
Bruegel M, George TI, Feng B, Allen TR, Bracco D, Zahniser DJ, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the cobas m 511 integrated hematology analyzer. Int J Lab Hematol 2018;40:672–82.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Kratz A, Lee S-H, Zini G, Riedl JA, Hur M, Machin S, et al. Digital morphology analyzers in hematology: ICSH review and recommendations. Int J Lab Hematol. doi: . [Epub ahead of print].CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Aidoudi F, Baccini V, Bardet B, Lafon C, Pellicier A, Reins F, et al. Performance analysis of the « Blast » flag on ADVIA® 2120/2120i – results of a multicenter study. Ann Biol Clin (Paris) 2019;77:174–8.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
International Council for Standardization in Haematology, Writing Group, Briggs C, Culp N, Davis B, d’Onofrio G, Zini G, et al.ICSH guidelines for the evaluation of blood cell analysers including those used for differential leucocyte and reticulocyte counting. Int J Lab Hematol 2014;36:613–27.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
H26-A2 – Validation, Verification, and Quality Assurance of Automated Hematology Analyzers. 2nd ed. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI, 2010.Google Scholar
Müller R, Mellors I, Johannessen B, Aarsand AK, Kiefer P, Hardy J, et al. European multi-center evaluation of the Abbott Cell-Dyn sapphire hematology analyzer. Lab Hematol Off Publ Int Soc Lab Hematol 2006;12:15–31.Google Scholar
Gill JE, Davis KA, Cowart WJ, Nepacena FU, Kim YR. A rapid and accurate closed-tube immunoassay for platelets on an automated hematology analyzer. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:47–56.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Desirable Biological Variation Database specifications – Westgard. https://www.westgard.com/biodatabase1.htm. Accessed: 5 Jun 2018.
Minimum Specifications from Biological Variation database – Westgard. https://www.westgard.com/minimum-biodatabase1.htm. Accessed: 17 Dec 2018.
Optimal Biological Variation database specifications – Westgard. https://www.westgard.com/optimal-biodatabase1htm.htm. Accessed: 17 Dec 2018.
Biological Variation Data for setting Quality Specifications – Westgard. Available at: https://www.westgard.com/guest12.htm. Accessed: 17 Dec 2018.
SKML (English). https://www.skml.nl/en/home?op=setLanguage;language=English. Accessed: 5 Jun 2018.
de Jonge R, Brouwer R, de Graaf MT, Luitwieler RL, Fleming C, de Frankrijker-Merkestijn M, et al. Evaluation of the new body fluid mode on the Sysmex XE-5000 for counting leukocytes and erythrocytes in cerebrospinal fluid and other body fluids. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:665–75.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
H20-A2 – Reference Leukocyte (WBC) Differential Count (Proportional) and Evaluation of Instrumental Methods. 2nd ed. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI, 2007.Google Scholar
Barnes PW, McFadden SL, Machin SJ, Simson E, international consensus group for hematology. The international consensus group for hematology review: suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis. Lab Hematol Off Publ Int Soc Lab Hematol 2005;11:83–90.Google Scholar
Schoonjans F. MedCalc’s diagnostic test evaluation calculator. MedCalc. https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php. Accessed: 1 Jun 2019.
Bartlett WA, Braga F, Carobene A, Coşkun A, Prusa R, Fernandez-Calle P, et al. A checklist for critical appraisal of studies of biological variation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:879–85.Web of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar
Amundsen EK, Henriksson CE, Holthe MR, Urdal P. Is the blood basophil count sufficiently precise, accurate, and specific?: three automated hematology instruments and flow cytometry compared. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;137:86–92.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hummel K, Sachse M, Hoffmann JJ, van Dun LP. Comparative evaluation of platelet counts in two hematology analyzers and potential effects on prophylactic platelet transfusion decisions. Transfusion (Paris) 2018;58:2301–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruegel M, Nagel D, Funk M, Fuhrmann P, Zander J, Teupser D. Comparison of five automated hematology analyzers in a university hospital setting: Abbott Cell-Dyn Sapphire, Beckman Coulter DxH 800, Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XE-5000, and Sysmex XN-2000. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1057–71.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Meintker L, Ringwald J, Rauh M, Krause SW. 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. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;139:641–50.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Kang SH, Kim HK, Ham CK, Lee DS, Cho HI. Comparison of four hematology analyzers, CELL-DYN Sapphire, ADVIA 120, Coulter LH 750, and Sysmex XE-2100, in terms of clinical usefulness. Int J Lab Hematol 2008;30:480–6.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Hotton J, Broothaers J, Swaelens C, Cantinieaux B. Performance and abnormal cell flagging comparisons of three automated blood cell counters: Cell-Dyn Sapphire, DxH-800, and XN-2000. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;140:845–52.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
About the article
Published Online: 2019-07-24
Published in Print: 2019-11-26
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: Analyzers and reagents were provided free of charge by Abbott Diagnostics, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Employment or leadership: GL is a scientific employee of Abbott Diagnostics. At the time of the study, JH was a scientific employee of Abbott Diagnostics.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization played no role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication. The funding organization provided a minimal version of the study design that was later supplemented and finalized by the study group.