[Establishment and evaluation of review criteria for ADVIA 120/2120 and different series of hematology analyzers].
OBJECTIVE
To establish the suitable review criteria for ADVIA 120/2120 and those for different series of hematology analyzers.


METHODS
A total of 2400 samples, including 6 blood neoplasms, were detected with ADVIA 120/2120 hematology analyzer, in which 1200 samples were detected by Sysmex XE-2100 and Beckman-Coulter LH750 hematology analyzers. In the meantime, blood smears were reviewed, and the results were analyzed statistically. The new review criteria were established by consulting and modifying the one as recommended by an international consensus group. Finally 300 samples were selected to validate the new review criteria.


RESULTS
The results of 2400 samples detected by ADVIA 120/2120 hematology analyzer were analyzed statistically according to the international consensus review rules and blood smear positive criteria formulated by Chinese experts. The true positive rate was 22.1% (n = 530), false positive rate 28.1% (n = 675), true negative rate 44.3% (n = 1063), false negative rate 5.5% (n = 132), and the smear review rate 50.2% (n = 1205). The false negative rate was over the acceptable limit of 5%. The new review criteria were established by amending the blood smear positive criteria, i. e. increasing the percentage of band neutrophils, eosinophils, basophils and monocytes and adjusting the international consensus review rules. Then the results were re-analyzed. The true positive rate, false positive rate, true negative rate and false negative rate were 15.5% (n = 371), 18.7% (n = 449), 61.6% (n = 1479) and 4.2% (n = 101) respectively. The smear review rate was 34.2% (n = 821) and no specimen of blood neoplasms was missed. On that basis, the current review criteria for ADVIA 120/2120, XE-2100 and LH750 hematology analyzer were proposed by adding some specific parameters. The results of 1200 samples with three instruments were analyzed according to the current criteria. And the false negative rates were 4.3%, 4.6% and 4.6%, and false positive rate 14.7%, 17.5% and 12.7% respectively. And no specimen of blood neoplasm was missed. The false negative rates of three instruments were 3.8%, 4.3% and 4.0% in validation teses.


CONCLUSIONS
The review criteria for three different series of hematology analyzers have been formulated for large general hospitals.
Xing
Ying
Y
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China.
Wang
Jian-Zhong
JZ
Pu
Cheng-Wei
CW
Shang
Ke
K
Yan
Zhen-Lin
ZL
Bai
Yu-Zhu
YZ
Yang
Wen-Shuang
WS
Li
Tao
T
Zhang
Shi-Min
SM
D057205:Automation, Laboratory / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D001772:Blood Cell Count / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D006405:Hematology / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans