title: Canine differential leukocyte counting with the CellaVision DM96Vision, Sysmex XT-2000iV, and Advia 2120 hematology analyzers and a manual method.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  For differential leukocyte counts, automated blood smear evaluation systems have been too slow or inaccurate to replace or supplement the manual differential count. The CellaVision DM96Vision (DM96V), a new instrument, is an automated image analysis system that is rapid and accurate enough to be used for enumerating human leukocytes and may be useful for analysis of canine blood.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aims of this study were to evaluate the performance of the DM96V in differential counting of canine leukocytes, to compare its performance with that of other methods, and to analyze interoperator variability.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four methods of determining the leukocyte differential count of 108 canine blood samples were compared based on agreement, precision, and errors as well as relative performance. Differential counts were obtained using the DM96V, the manual method, and automated methods performed by the Advia 2120 and Sysmex XT-2000iV.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All leukocyte types were detected by the DM96V and the manual method, and all 4 methods had similar mean and median results in most cases. The automated methods were more precise than either the DM96V or manual method when comparing identification of a single type of leukocyte, especially neutrophils and lymphocytes. However, precision of the automated methods was only fair for monocytes, and the Advia and Sysmex failed to identify basophils. The Advia reported fewer monocytes and eosinophils than did the other methods. Significantly fewer lymphocytes were identified by the manual method than by the Sysmex, Advia, and DM96V. The DM96V occasionally presented duplicate images of the same neutrophils.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The CellaVision DM96V is a satisfactory system for facilitating canine differential leukocyte counting. The DM96V differential count was more similar to the manual count than to automated counts, which were more precise but had errors and omissions in detecting some types of leukocytes.
authors: Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. tvedten@msu.edu
authors: Harold W
authors: HW
authors: Tvedten
authors: Inger E
authors: IE
authors: Lilliehöök
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D004285:Dogs / Q000097:blood*; D006405:Hematology / Q000295:instrumentation; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D007958:Leukocyte Count / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards / Q000662:veterinary*; D007962:Leukocytes / Q000166:cytology*; D015588:Observer Variation; D011786:Quality Control; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012984:Software / Q000592:standards