Evaluation of the monocyte counting by two automated haematology analysers compared with flow cytometry

Abstract

The aim is to determine the monocyte count performance of the Bayer Diagnostics ADVIA120 and Coulter LH 750 automated haematology analysers and the results obtained by these two instruments were compared with those provided by Becton Dickinson FACScan flow cytometer using the combination of CD45/CD14 MoAb. Linearity and imprecision were also evaluated. The linearity of both instruments was good. Coulter LH 750 showed better precision (4.3%) than ADVIA 120 (9.0%) both within and between batch. A significant correlation (r = 0.973) was found between the LH 750 and the flow cytometry method, while a modest one was observed between the latter and the ADVIA 120 (r = 0.880). When comparing the percentage of monocytes by means of one-way anova and Tukey test, it was found that the LH 750 provided the closest results in comparison with flow cytometry, with no statistical difference between the means (mean difference MO% = 0.6); however the difference was statistically different between the ADVIA 120 and flow cytometry (mean difference MO% = -4.06). These data were confirmed by Altman-Bland and Deming regression analyses.

Evaluation and comparison of automated hematology analyzer, flow cytometry, and digital morphology analyzer for monocyte counting

“…The monocyte count on flow cytometry shows that the FlowDiff has a satisfactory CV APS , and that the CVs are even are even lower (i.e., 1.9% and 4.5%) than those of the XN‐module. This excellent performance can perhaps be explained by the use of antibodies targeting specific receptors expressed at the monocyte surface. The comparison of monocyte counts between the XN‐module and FlowDiff1/2, and between OM and DI60 (Table ) shows excellent correlation, whereas the comparison of techniques based on different principles (ie, XN‐module and FlowDiff1/2 vs OM or DI60) revealed a proportional error and the presence of a bias.…”

“…Irrespective of the technique used for CBC, the neutrophil, lymphocyte, and eosinophil counts obtained with various flow cytometers are substantially aligned, and are also well correlated with the reference technique (ie, optical microscopy: OM). Conversely, many problems still plague both the monocyte and basophil counts, and this is mainly attributable to poor agreement among different instrumentation and insufficient comparability with OM.…”

“…The result of the monocyte count may be high (ie, monocytosis) in diseases like sarcoidosis, and is also useful for the differential diagnosis of acute (Dengue), sub‐acute (Ricketsia), and chronic infections (tuberculosis). Many other causes of monocytosis have been described, such as in patients with benzene and phosphorus poisoning.…”

Effect of FTY720 on Chronic Cyclosporine Nephropathy in Rats

“…The number of circulating WBC and differential count of WBC was measured by a automated hematology analyzer (ADVIA 120, Bayer Diagnostics, Bayer Medical, Tokyo, Japan). It is known that measurement of leukocyte with ADVIA120 produces similar result compared with FACS analysis (20). Morphological examination of lymphocytes was performed on films stained with May-Grunwald and Giemsa.…”

Quality assessment of boar semen by multivariate analysis of flow cytometric data

“…For this analysis, one-and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used [8][9][10][11]. ANOVA assumes that the data extracted from the populations (represented by variables) are independent.…”