Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Aims Recently, a new automated digital cell imaging analyser (Sysmex CellaVision DC-1), intended for use in low-volume and small satellite laboratories, has become available. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of the DC-1 with the Sysmex DI-60 system and the gold standard, manual microscopy.
Methods White blood cell (WBC) differential counts in 100 normal and 100 abnormal peripheral blood smears were compared between the DC-1, the DI-60 and manual microscopy to establish accuracy, within-run imprecision, clinical sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, the agreement between precharacterisation and postcharacterisation of red blood cell (RBC) morphological abnormalities was determined for the DC-1.
Results WBC preclassification and postclassification results of the DC-1 showed good correlation compared with DI-60 results and manual microscopy. In addition, the within-run SD of the DC-1 was below 1 for all five major WBC classes, indicating good reproducibility. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 96.7%/95.9% compared with the DI-60% and 96.6%/95.3% compared with manual microscopy. The overall agreement on RBC morphology between the precharacterisation and postcharacterisation results ranged from 49% (poikilocytosis) to 100% (hypochromasia, microcytosis and macrocytosis).
Conclusions The DC-1 has proven to be an accurate digital cell imaging system for differential counting and morphological classification of WBCs and RBCs in peripheral blood smears. It is a compact and easily operated instrument that can offer low-volume and small satellite laboratories the possibilities of readily available blood cell analysis that can be stored and retrieved for consultation with remote locations.
- haematology
- morphological and microscopic findings
- cell differentiation
- leucocytes
- erythrocytes
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Footnotes
Handling editor Mary Frances McMullin.
Contributors All authors have contributed to the conception and design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. LNvdV drafted the article. HAH and SMS critically revised it for important intellectual content and all authors approved the final version to be published.
Funding This study was funded by Sysmex Europe GmbH.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.