These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Performance evaluation of a novel platelet count parameter, hybrid platelet count, on the BC-780 automated hematology analyzer.
    Author: Prompetchara E, Parnsamut C, Chirapanuruk A, Ketloy C.
    Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med; 2024 Mar 25; 62(4):690-697. PubMed ID: 37855253.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Automated hematology analysis is expected to improve the performance of platelet counting. We evaluated the performance of a new platelet counting, hybrid (PLT-H) and also impedance (PLT-I) and optical (PLT-O) on the BC-780 automated hematology analyzer compared to the international reference method (IRM) in blood samples with thrombocytopenic and platelet interference. METHODS: The basic platelet count performance of the BC-780 automated hematology analyzer was evaluated according to the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute (CLSI) Document H26-A2. Additionally, the thrombocytopenic (low PLT count) blood samples and the platelet interference blood samples including fragmented red blood cells (RBCs), microcytes or small RBCs, and giant platelets were determined with the BC-780 hematology analyzer compared to the IRM. RESULTS: Blank counting and the carry-over contamination rate of platelet count using the BC-780 both met the manufacturers' claim. For both 123 thrombocytopenic and 232 platelet interference blood samples (72 fragmented RBCs, 91 microcytes and 51 giant platelets), all three platelet counting methods exhibited high comparability with the IRM (the lowest correlation (r)=0.916). Interestingly, the comparability of PLT-H (r=0.928-0.986) with the IRM was better than that of PLT-I (r=0.916-0.979). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of PLT-H in the BC-780 met the manufacturer's specifications. PLT-H exhibits better reproducibility than did PLT-I, correlates well with the PLT-O for thrombocytopenic samples and demonstrates good anti-interference ability. PLT-H counting is therefore recommended as a zero-cost alternative platelet counting method for platelet interference samples in clinical settings.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]