Evaluation of a Semiautomatic Prothrombin Time Determination

Lusted, Dean; Bartlett, Raymond C.; Dawson, Joyce

doi:10.1093/ajcp/43.4_ts.393

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equipment for performing coagulation assays have evolved from very simple and limited in scope (Lusted, Bartlett & Dawson 1965) to automatic and semiautomatic devices that permit large volume screenings (Colman, Williams & Wyllie I 975, Davey & Oates 1974, Morin & Willoughby 1975, Saleem & Cieslica 1976, Sibley & Singer 1972.In our institution, one of the largest loads of laboratory practice lies in the field of haematology, including coagulation testing (Drewinko et al 1977). During the year 1976 more than 17 ooo prothrombin time tests (PT) and more than 16 500 activated partial thromboplastin time tests (PTT) were performed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of automatic and semiautomatic coagulation assay instruments

Drewinko

Roe

Wallace

et al. 1980

Clinical &Amp; Laboratory Haematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The precision of five instruments (Coag‐A‐Mate, Auto‐Fi, Coagulyzer, Electra 600 and Fibrometer) in performing activated partial thromboplastin time (PTT) assays were compared using three different coagulation reagent systems (Ortho, Dade, and General Diagnostics) utilizing normal and abnormal control reagents. There were wide variations in mean PTT values and co‐efficient of variation (CV) among all instruments and for each instrument utilizing different reagents. The smallest CV was noted for the Coagulyzer using Dade reagents, the Coag‐A‐Mate using Dade and General Diagnostic reagents and the Auto‐Fi using General Diagnostic reagents. Auto‐Fi values were always longer than those determined with the Fibrometer whereas the optical detection instruments usually gave shorter values. The range of normal values for the prothrombin time (PT) and PTT assay was recorded simultaneously on blood samples of 52 healthy donors utilizing the Coagulyzer with Ortho reagents, the Coag‐A‐Mate with General Diagnostic reagents and the Auto‐Fi with Dade reagents. No differences were noted between male and female donors. There was a poor correlation among PT results recorded by all instruments. For the PTT assay, results obtained with the Coag‐A‐Mate and the Auto‐Fi had a correlation of 0.84. The normal mean plus 2 or 3 standard deviations determined by the Auto‐Fi and the Coag‐A‐Mate were used to classify blood samples from 263 patients as normal or abnormal when assayed by each instrument. For the PTT assay, coincidence was attained in 91.2% of the samples and discrepancies (a blood classified abnormal by one instrument and normal by the other) were evenly distributed for both instruments. For the PT assay, coincidence occurred in 85.1% of the cases and there was a statistically significant trend (P

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%