Cargando…

Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting

CONTEXT: Many hematology laboratories have adopted semi-automated digital platforms for routine use and the evidence supporting their use is increasing. AIMS: The CellaVision platforms are among the most thoroughly studied digital hematology platforms; we wished to determine the accuracy of CellaVis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mahe, Etienne R., Higa, Diane, Naugler, Christopher, Mansoor, Adnan, Shabani-Rad, Meer-Taher
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25057431
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.133127
_version_ 1782321367304110080
author Mahe, Etienne R.
Higa, Diane
Naugler, Christopher
Mansoor, Adnan
Shabani-Rad, Meer-Taher
author_facet Mahe, Etienne R.
Higa, Diane
Naugler, Christopher
Mansoor, Adnan
Shabani-Rad, Meer-Taher
author_sort Mahe, Etienne R.
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: Many hematology laboratories have adopted semi-automated digital platforms for routine use and the evidence supporting their use is increasing. AIMS: The CellaVision platforms are among the most thoroughly studied digital hematology platforms; we wished to determine the accuracy of CellaVision for reticulocyte counting. DESIGN, MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared reticulocyte counts performed manually, using the Beckman Coulter LH750 automated analyzer and with the CellaVision DM96 platform. We analyzed the results for pair-wise correlation and bias, and precision. STATISTICAL ANALYSES USED: Analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS), including Spearman's rho correlation coefficient, Friedman's two-way Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) for comparison of distributions; bias was compared by way of mean and standard deviation. RESULTS: The CellaVision reticulocyte counts correlated most strongly with those of the analyzer (often considered the benchmark test); the reticulocyte count distributions were noted not to be significantly different from each other across all three methods. The mean and standard deviation of bias were lowest in the comparison of CellaVision and LH750 counts. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide additional support for the accuracy of digital hematology applications using the CellaVision DM96 platform.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4060401
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40604012014-07-23 Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting Mahe, Etienne R. Higa, Diane Naugler, Christopher Mansoor, Adnan Shabani-Rad, Meer-Taher J Pathol Inform Brief Report CONTEXT: Many hematology laboratories have adopted semi-automated digital platforms for routine use and the evidence supporting their use is increasing. AIMS: The CellaVision platforms are among the most thoroughly studied digital hematology platforms; we wished to determine the accuracy of CellaVision for reticulocyte counting. DESIGN, MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared reticulocyte counts performed manually, using the Beckman Coulter LH750 automated analyzer and with the CellaVision DM96 platform. We analyzed the results for pair-wise correlation and bias, and precision. STATISTICAL ANALYSES USED: Analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS), including Spearman's rho correlation coefficient, Friedman's two-way Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) for comparison of distributions; bias was compared by way of mean and standard deviation. RESULTS: The CellaVision reticulocyte counts correlated most strongly with those of the analyzer (often considered the benchmark test); the reticulocyte count distributions were noted not to be significantly different from each other across all three methods. The mean and standard deviation of bias were lowest in the comparison of CellaVision and LH750 counts. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide additional support for the accuracy of digital hematology applications using the CellaVision DM96 platform. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4060401/ /pubmed/25057431 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.133127 Text en Copyright: © 2014 Mahe ER http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Brief Report
Mahe, Etienne R.
Higa, Diane
Naugler, Christopher
Mansoor, Adnan
Shabani-Rad, Meer-Taher
Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting
title Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting
title_full Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting
title_fullStr Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting
title_short Accuracy of the CellaVision DM96 platform for reticulocyte counting
title_sort accuracy of the cellavision dm96 platform for reticulocyte counting
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25057431
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.133127
work_keys_str_mv AT maheetienner accuracyofthecellavisiondm96platformforreticulocytecounting
AT higadiane accuracyofthecellavisiondm96platformforreticulocytecounting
AT nauglerchristopher accuracyofthecellavisiondm96platformforreticulocytecounting
AT mansooradnan accuracyofthecellavisiondm96platformforreticulocytecounting
AT shabaniradmeertaher accuracyofthecellavisiondm96platformforreticulocytecounting