Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 57, Issue 9

Issues

Automated measurement of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate: method validation and comparison

Ivana LapićORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0854-4526 / Elisa Piva / Federica Spolaore / Francesca Tosato / Michela Pelloso / Mario Plebani
Published Online: 2019-04-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0204

Abstract

Background

Development of automated analyzers for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) has imposed the need for extensive validation prior to their implementation in routine practice, to ensure comparability with the reference Westergren method. The aim of our study was to perform the analytical validation of two automated ESR analyzers, the Ves-Matic Cube 200 and the TEST1.

Methods

Validation was performed according to the recent International Council for Standardization in Hematology recommendations and included determination of intrarun and inter-run precision, assessment of sample carryover, hemolysis interference, sensitivity to fibrinogen, method comparison with the gold standard Westergren method and stability test.

Results

The highest intrarun imprecision was obtained for the low ESR range (33.5% for Ves-Matic Cube; 37.3% for TEST1) while inter-run coefficients of variation on three levels were much better for the TEST1 (0%, 2% and 1.2%) compared to the Ves-Matic Cube 200 on two levels (24.9% and 5.8%). Both Ves-Matic Cube 200 and TEST1 showed no statistically significant difference when compared with Westergren. Bland-Altman analysis yielded overall insignificant mean biases for all comparisons, but a wider dispersion of results and 95% limits of agreement for comparisons including the Ves-Matic Cube 200. Carryover was considered insignificant, while hemolysis had a negative effect on all assessed ESR methods. The highest sensitivity to fibrinogen was observed for the Ves-Matic Cube 200, followed by Westergren and the least sensitive was the TEST1.

Conclusions

The obtained results proved the analytical validity of the TEST1 and the Ves-Matic Cube 200, and high comparability with the gold standard Westergren method, showing obvious improvements in standardization of ESR methods.

Keywords: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; standardization; TEST1; validation; Ves-Matic Cube 200; Westergren method

References

  • 1.

    Fahraeus R. The suspension stability of the blood. Acta Med Scand 1921;55:1–7.Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Fahraeus R. The suspension stability of the blood. Physiol Rev 1929;9:241–74.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Plebani M. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate: innovative techniques for an obsolete test? Clin Chem Lab Med 2003;41:115–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Bridgen ML. Clinical utility of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Am Fam Physician 1999;60:1443–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Hameed MA, Waqas S. Physiological basis and clinical utility of erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Pak J Med Sci 2006;22:214–8.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Osei-Bimpong A, Meek JH, Lewis SM. ESR or CRP? A comparison of their clinical utility. Hematology 2007;12:353–7.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Diagnosis and management of rheumatoid arthritis – a review. J Am Med Assoc 2018;320:1360–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Dasgupta B, Cimmino MA, Maradit-Kremers H, Schmidt WA, Schirmer M, Salvarani C, et al. 2012 provisional criteria for polymyalgia rheumatica: a European League against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:484–92.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Ness T, Bley TA, Schmidt WA, Lamprecht P. The diagnosis and treatment of giant cell arteritis. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2013;110:376–86.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Barrack R, Bhimani S, Blevins JL, Blevins K, Demetres M, Figgie M, et al. General assembly, diagnosis, laboratory test: proceedings of International Orthopedic Infections. J Arthoplasty 2019;34:S187–95.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Eichenauer DA, Aleman BM, André M, Federico M, Hutchings M, Illidge T, et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Hodgkin lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2018;29(Suppl 4):iv19–29.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Jou JM, Lewis SM, Briggs C, Lee SH, De La Salle B, McFadden S. International Council for Standardization in Haematology. ICSH review of the measurement of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Int J Lab Hematol 2011;33:125–32.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Kratz A, Plebani M, Peng M, Lee YK, McCafferty R, Machin SJ, et al. ICSH recommendations for modified and alternate methods measuring the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Int J Lab Hem 2017;39:448–57.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Plebani M, Piva E. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate: use of fresh blood for quality control. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:621–6.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Perovic E, Bakovic L, Valcic A. Evaluation of Ves-Matic Cube 200 – an automated system for the measurement of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Int J Lab Hem 2010;32:88–94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Piva E, Fassina P, Plebani M. Determination of the length of sedimentation reaction (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) in non-anticoagulated blood with the Microtest 1. Clin Chem Lab Med 2002;40:713–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Procedures for the Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Test; Approved Standard-Fifth Edition. CLSI document A02-A5. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2011.Google Scholar

  • 18.

    Curvers J, Kooren J, Laan M, van Lierop E, van de Kerkhof D, Scharnhorst V, et al. Evaluation of the Ves-Matic Cube 200 erythrocyte sedimentation method: comparison with Westergren-based methods. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;134:653–60.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Sezer S, Yilmaz FM, Kaya O, Uysal S. Evaluation of Ves-Matic Cube 200 for erythrocyte sedimentation rate determination. J Clin Lab Anal 2013;27:367–72.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Cha CH, Park CJ, Cha YJ, Kim HK, Kim DH, Honghoon, et al. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate measurements by TEST 1 better reflect inflammation than do those by the Westergren method in patients with malignancy, autoimmune disease, or infection. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:189–94.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 21.

    Cha CH, Cha YJ, Park CJ, Kim HK, Cha EJ, Kim DH, et al. Evaluation of the TEST 1 erythrocyte sedimentation rate system and intra- and inter-laboratory quality control using new latex control materials. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:1043–8.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 22.

    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Validation, Verification and Quality Assurance of Automated Hematology Analyzers; Approved Standard – Second Edition. CLSI document H26-A2. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2010.Google Scholar

  • 23.

    Boğdaycioğlu N, Yilmaz FM, Sezer S, Oğuz E. Comparison of iSED and Ves-Matic Cube 200 erythrocyte sedimentation rate measurements with Westergren method. J Clin Lab Anal 2015;29:397–404.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 24.

    Plebani M, De Toni S, Sanzari MC, Bernardi D, Stockreiter E. The TEST 1 automated system: a new method for measuring the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Am J Clin Pathol 1998;110:334–40.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    Hardeman MR, Levitus M, Pelliccia A, Bauman AA. Test 1 analyser for determination of ESR. 1. Practical evaluation and comparison with the Westergren technique. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2010;70:21–5.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 26.

    Romero A, Muñoz M, Ramírez G. Length of sedimentation reaction in blood: a comparison of the test 1 ESR system with the ICSH reference method and the sedisystem 15. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003;41:232–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 27.

    Happe MR, Battafarano DF, Dooley DP, Rennie TA, Murphy FT, Casey TJ, et al. Validation of the Diesse Mini-Ves erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) analyzer using the Westergren ESR method in patients with systemic inflammatory conditions. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:14–7.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    Raijmakers MT, Kuijper PH, Bakkeren DL, Vader HL. The effect of paraproteins on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate: a comparison between the StarrSed and TEST 1. Ann Clin Biochem 2008;45(Pt 6):593–7.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 29.

    Holley L, Woodland N, Hung WT, Cordatos K, Reuben A. Influence of fibrinogen and haematocrit on erythrocyte sedimentation kinetics. Biorheology 1999;36:287–977.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 30.

    Brust M, Aouane O, Thiébaud M, Flormann D, Verdier C, Kaestner L, et al. The plasma protein fibrinogen stabilizes clusters of red blood cells in microcapillary flows. Sci Rep 2014;4:4348.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2019-02-21

Accepted: 2019-03-06

Published Online: 2019-04-02

Published in Print: 2019-08-27


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 57, Issue 9, Pages 1364–1373, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0204.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Ivana Lapić, Andrea Padoan, Dania Bozzato, and Mario Plebani
American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2019

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in