Cargando…

Differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the Advia 2120 and a manual method

We evaluated the performance of the Advia 2120 (Siemens) differential leukocyte count (A-Diff) compared to the manual method (M-Diff) in rabbits. EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples collected for diagnostic purposes were analyzed within 6 h of collection. The M-Diff was performed blindly by 2 observer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oikonomidis, Ioannis L., Milne, Elspeth, Piccinelli, Chiara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8225691/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33834920
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10406387211007877
_version_ 1783712135588610048
author Oikonomidis, Ioannis L.
Milne, Elspeth
Piccinelli, Chiara
author_facet Oikonomidis, Ioannis L.
Milne, Elspeth
Piccinelli, Chiara
author_sort Oikonomidis, Ioannis L.
collection PubMed
description We evaluated the performance of the Advia 2120 (Siemens) differential leukocyte count (A-Diff) compared to the manual method (M-Diff) in rabbits. EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples collected for diagnostic purposes were analyzed within 6 h of collection. The M-Diff was performed blindly by 2 observers on blood smears by counting 200 cells. We initially included 117 samples; 25 samples were excluded because of suboptimal gating of leukocytes in the Advia peroxidase cytogram or poor blood smear quality. The correlation between the A-Diff and M-Diff was very high for heterophils (r = 0.924, p < 0.001) and lymphocytes (r = 0.903, p < 0.001), high for basophils (r = 0.823, p < 0.001), moderate for monocytes (r = 0.645, p < 0.001), and low for eosinophils (r = 0.336, p = 0.001). The Passing–Bablok regression analyses revealed a small-to-moderate constant error for lymphocytes and a slight constant error for basophils. Small proportional errors were detected for heterophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils. The Bland–Altman analyses revealed that the Advia significantly underestimates heterophils and overestimates lymphocytes compared to M-Diff. The biases for the other leukocytes were minimal and likely clinical insignificant; however, our results, particularly for eosinophils, should be interpreted cautiously given the observed low percentages in our samples. Given the observed biases in heterophil and lymphocyte percentages in the Advia 2120 CBC results in rabbits, method-specific reference intervals should be used. The Advia can recognize leporine basophils. Evaluation of blood smears is still recommended to investigate abnormal results and erroneous cytograms reported by the Advia.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8225691
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82256912021-07-01 Differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the Advia 2120 and a manual method Oikonomidis, Ioannis L. Milne, Elspeth Piccinelli, Chiara J Vet Diagn Invest Full Scientific Reports We evaluated the performance of the Advia 2120 (Siemens) differential leukocyte count (A-Diff) compared to the manual method (M-Diff) in rabbits. EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples collected for diagnostic purposes were analyzed within 6 h of collection. The M-Diff was performed blindly by 2 observers on blood smears by counting 200 cells. We initially included 117 samples; 25 samples were excluded because of suboptimal gating of leukocytes in the Advia peroxidase cytogram or poor blood smear quality. The correlation between the A-Diff and M-Diff was very high for heterophils (r = 0.924, p < 0.001) and lymphocytes (r = 0.903, p < 0.001), high for basophils (r = 0.823, p < 0.001), moderate for monocytes (r = 0.645, p < 0.001), and low for eosinophils (r = 0.336, p = 0.001). The Passing–Bablok regression analyses revealed a small-to-moderate constant error for lymphocytes and a slight constant error for basophils. Small proportional errors were detected for heterophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils. The Bland–Altman analyses revealed that the Advia significantly underestimates heterophils and overestimates lymphocytes compared to M-Diff. The biases for the other leukocytes were minimal and likely clinical insignificant; however, our results, particularly for eosinophils, should be interpreted cautiously given the observed low percentages in our samples. Given the observed biases in heterophil and lymphocyte percentages in the Advia 2120 CBC results in rabbits, method-specific reference intervals should be used. The Advia can recognize leporine basophils. Evaluation of blood smears is still recommended to investigate abnormal results and erroneous cytograms reported by the Advia. SAGE Publications 2021-04-09 2021-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8225691/ /pubmed/33834920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10406387211007877 Text en © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Full Scientific Reports
Oikonomidis, Ioannis L.
Milne, Elspeth
Piccinelli, Chiara
Differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the Advia 2120 and a manual method
title Differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the Advia 2120 and a manual method
title_full Differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the Advia 2120 and a manual method
title_fullStr Differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the Advia 2120 and a manual method
title_full_unstemmed Differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the Advia 2120 and a manual method
title_short Differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the Advia 2120 and a manual method
title_sort differential white blood cell counts in rabbits: a comparison of the advia 2120 and a manual method
topic Full Scientific Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8225691/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33834920
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10406387211007877
work_keys_str_mv AT oikonomidisioannisl differentialwhitebloodcellcountsinrabbitsacomparisonoftheadvia2120andamanualmethod
AT milneelspeth differentialwhitebloodcellcountsinrabbitsacomparisonoftheadvia2120andamanualmethod
AT piccinellichiara differentialwhitebloodcellcountsinrabbitsacomparisonoftheadvia2120andamanualmethod