Performance Evaluation of 5 part analyzer ADVIA 2120i at Medical College Laboratory.
Keywords:
Study 5 part analyser, Complete blood count(CBC), Correlation, slide, flagging, slide review rates.
Abstract
Background: Central Lab, MGM Medical College is a NABL accredited medical college hospital laboratory. Lab serves more than 100 clinicians associated with hospital, hospital partners, and private consultants.We commissioned 5 part analyzer Advia 2120i for giving better service to our clinicians and patients. Over next 2 yearsas our quality control and patient data was accumulating, we assessed the analyzer for precision, stability, differential capabilities, slide review rates.Methods: Three hundred samples were assessed for differential and morphology flagging on each analyzer using the reference 100 cell manual differential for comparison. Precision data was collected from 3 level internal quality control samples from BioRad, and Bias was assessed from EQAS program of Randox and Biorad LaboratoriesResult: Stability studies at 24 hours showed that Advia gave good reproducibility of retained patient samples, with minimal changes in the mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and hematocrit. Study showed that precision and bias of Advia 2120i never exceeded 5% for any of CBC parameter, differential count using paired ‘t’ test for comparing manual countand machine generated count showed no significant difference between the two when checked for all the blood cells like neutrophils (p:0.3), lymphocytes (p:7.5), eosinophils (p:0.6), monocytes (p:0.04). Correlation for RBC flags like macrocytes, microcytes, anisocytosis and NRBC`s was 100% whereas correlation for LUC was 80%,blast 70%,immature granulocytes 96% and atypical cells was 95%.Conclusion: In conclusion, our study reveals that performance of Advia 2120i is satisfactory i.e. well within the CLIA limits for CBC and the machine is fit for purpose.DOI:10.21276/AABS.1843References
1.ADVIAi2120Haematologyanalyser Operating manual.
2.International Standard.ISO 15189:2012.Medical Laboratories-requirements for quality and competence.3rd ed,2012.
3. Tracey Fernandez, Lynn BessertDomack, Dinah Montes, Richard Piniero, Eileen Landrum, Esther Vital.Performance Evaluation of the Coulter LH 750 Hematology Analyser.Laboratory Hematology 7.2001.p217-228.
4.GBourner, J Dhaliwal, J Sumner. Performance Evaluation of the Largest Fully Automated Hematology Analysers in a Large, Commercial Laboratory Setting: a 4 Way, Side by Side Study. Laboratory Hematology II:I-xx;p1-16.
5.DouglasChesher. Evaluating assay precision.ClinBiochem Rev Vol 29 Suppl (i)August 2008;p 23-26.
6.Marry A Williamson, L Michael Snyder.Wallach`s Interpretation of Diagnostic Tests.9th ed. Philadelphia, USA. Lippincott Wiliamsand Wilkins; Wolter Kluwer Health.2011.
7.RogerJohnson.Assessment of Bias with emphasis on Method Comparison. ClinBiochem Rev Vol 29Suppl(i) August 2008;p37-42.
8.Richard A, McPherson, Mathew R. Pincus.Henry’s Clinical diagnosis and Management by Laboratory //methods,21/e.Virginia,USA.Saunders;Elsevier:2008.
9. Sue Jung Kim ,YoonjungKim ,SaeamShin, JaewooSong, JongRakchoi. Comparison study of the rates of Manual peripheral blood smear review from 3 automated hematology analysers,UnicelDxH 800,ADVIA 2120i;and XE 2100,Using international Consensus group Guidelines.ArchPathol Lab Med Vol 136,November 2012;p1408-1413.
10.A.Giacomini,PLegovini,F.Antico,G.Gessoni,S.Valdverde.Evaluation of Platelet Analysis on ADVIA120 Hematology System. Laboratory Haematology 7;2001;p180-185.
11.Velizarova M,Yacheva T,TzatchevK.Evaluation of analytical reliability of hematology analyser ADVIA2120i;verification and comparison with COULTER LH 750.Meditsinski Pregled/Medical Review 2012 Vol.48 no 2;p36-43.
2.International Standard.ISO 15189:2012.Medical Laboratories-requirements for quality and competence.3rd ed,2012.
3. Tracey Fernandez, Lynn BessertDomack, Dinah Montes, Richard Piniero, Eileen Landrum, Esther Vital.Performance Evaluation of the Coulter LH 750 Hematology Analyser.Laboratory Hematology 7.2001.p217-228.
4.GBourner, J Dhaliwal, J Sumner. Performance Evaluation of the Largest Fully Automated Hematology Analysers in a Large, Commercial Laboratory Setting: a 4 Way, Side by Side Study. Laboratory Hematology II:I-xx;p1-16.
5.DouglasChesher. Evaluating assay precision.ClinBiochem Rev Vol 29 Suppl (i)August 2008;p 23-26.
6.Marry A Williamson, L Michael Snyder.Wallach`s Interpretation of Diagnostic Tests.9th ed. Philadelphia, USA. Lippincott Wiliamsand Wilkins; Wolter Kluwer Health.2011.
7.RogerJohnson.Assessment of Bias with emphasis on Method Comparison. ClinBiochem Rev Vol 29Suppl(i) August 2008;p37-42.
8.Richard A, McPherson, Mathew R. Pincus.Henry’s Clinical diagnosis and Management by Laboratory //methods,21/e.Virginia,USA.Saunders;Elsevier:2008.
9. Sue Jung Kim ,YoonjungKim ,SaeamShin, JaewooSong, JongRakchoi. Comparison study of the rates of Manual peripheral blood smear review from 3 automated hematology analysers,UnicelDxH 800,ADVIA 2120i;and XE 2100,Using international Consensus group Guidelines.ArchPathol Lab Med Vol 136,November 2012;p1408-1413.
10.A.Giacomini,PLegovini,F.Antico,G.Gessoni,S.Valdverde.Evaluation of Platelet Analysis on ADVIA120 Hematology System. Laboratory Haematology 7;2001;p180-185.
11.Velizarova M,Yacheva T,TzatchevK.Evaluation of analytical reliability of hematology analyser ADVIA2120i;verification and comparison with COULTER LH 750.Meditsinski Pregled/Medical Review 2012 Vol.48 no 2;p36-43.
Published
2018-01-25
Issue
Section
Original Article
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
