Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Ves-Matic CUBE 200: is modified Westergren method for erythrocyte sedimentation rate a valid alternative to the gold standard?
  1. Ivana Lapić1,
  2. Elisa Piva2,
  3. Federica Spolaore2,
  4. Giulia Musso2,
  5. Francesca Tosato2,
  6. Michela Pelloso2,
  7. Mario Plebani2
  1. 1 Department of Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
  2. 2 Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Ivana Lapić, Department of Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Zagreb 10000, Croatia; ivana.lapic{at}hotmail.com

Abstract

Ves-Matic CUBE 200 is an automated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) analyser based on the modified Westergren principle of measurement. In this study, we aimed to assess its analytical performance following the key points addressed by the International Council for Standardization in Haematology and the comparability with the gold standard Westergren method. Comparison of the two methods yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.852, no significant bias and a small constant difference between compared results. Intrarun coefficients of variation (CV) ranged from 2.2% to 22.2%, the higher being for lower ESR values, while inter-run CVs were 19.7% for the normal range and 3.0% for the abnormal range. This study proved the analytical validity of the Ves-Matic CUBE 200 and its high comparability with the Westergren method, showing obvious improvements in the technology applied for automated determination of ESR and a valuable step forward in standardisation of ESR methods.

  • erythrocyte sedimentation rate
  • automation
  • validation
  • Ves-Matic CUBE 200
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Mary Frances McMullin.

  • Contributors IL performed the study, analysed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. EP designed and performed the study, analysed and interpreted the data, and cowrote the manuscript. FS and GM performed the study and analysed the data. FT and MP designed and performed the study. MP designed the study and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors drafted the article and approved its final version for submission.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.