4.4 Article

Performance evaluation of the Sysmex haematology XN modular system

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 11, Pages 1024-1030

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200930

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The Sysmex XN haematology instrument performs automatic reflex testing, depending on sample results. A nucleated red blood cell (NRBC) count is provided on all samples. The instrument has a smaller footprint (34%) than previous Sysmex XE analysers. Methods An evaluation comparing all results to the Sysmex XE-2100 and manual microscopic differential and morphology (n = 390) was performed followed by a workflow study of 1000 samples to compare speed of operation and number of blood films reviews required from both systems. Results The new features on the instrument are: (1) white cell and NRBC channel, all samples include the NRBC count; (2) white cell precursor channel: false positive flags for blasts, abnormal lymphocytes and atypical lymphocytes are reduced significantly without a statistical increase of false negatives; (3) low white cell count mode: suggested setting of <0.5 x 10(9)/l. An extended count is more precise and provides an accurate differential. Fluorescent platelet count is performed in a dedicated channel. If the red cell or platelet size histograms are abnormal or if the platelet count is low, then a fluorescent platelet count is automatically performed. Good correlation with the XE-2100 and manual differential was found and the improved results compared to the reference flow cytometric analysis for platelet counts, especially below 30 x 10(9)/l (XE-2100, R-2 = 0.500; XN, R-2 = 0.875). Conclusion The XN showed reduced sample turnaround time of 10% and reduced number of blood films for examination, 49% less than the XE-2100 without loss of sensitivity with more precise and accurate results on low cell counts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available