Correlation Engine 2.0
Clear Search sequence regions

Sizes of these terms reflect their relevance to your search.

Using 106 samples from patients with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) less than 2.0 × 10(9)/L, two 5-part differential hematology instruments (Sysmex XE-2100, Sysmex, Kobe, Japan, and Advia 2120i, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Deerfield, IL), two 3-part differential hematology instruments (Sysmex K4500, Sysmex, and Advia 60, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics), and an automated system for examination of microscopic slides (CellaVision DM96, CellaVision, Lund, Sweden) were compared with a flow cytometric (FCM) neutrophil count using monoclonal antibodies for cell classification. The precision and accuracy of the 5-part differential instrument ANC was very good at more than 0.1 × 10(9)/L, although a small systematic difference (10.3%) was found between the 2 instruments. The ANC of the 3-part differential instruments was less reliable, but the WBC count correlated very well with the WBC count from the 5-part differential instruments. Also, the neutrophil count from the CellaVision DM96 compared very well with FCM. When used in the correct laboratory setting, all of the evaluated instruments provide ANCs and WBCs with adequate accuracy and precision.


Erik K Amundsen, Petter Urdal, Tor-Arne Hagve, Mette R Holthe, Carola E Henriksson. Absolute neutrophil counts from automated hematology instruments are accurate and precise even at very low levels. American journal of clinical pathology. 2012 Jun;137(6):862-9

Expand section icon Mesh Tags

Expand section icon Substances

PMID: 22586044

View Full Text