Skip to main content

Comparison of the ProCyte Dx analyzer with the ADVIA 2120 and the manual differential for validation of equine and bovine hemograms

Comparative Clinical Pathology volume 22, pages 855–868 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the laser-based in-house hematology analyzer ProCyte Dx performing a complete hemogram for bovine and equine blood samples. This is a prospective study of clinically healthy or ill horses (n = 175) and cattle (n = 115). EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples were analyzed within 3–6 h after sampling. Routine hemogram variables including differential counts were compared to reference methods (ADVIA 2120, 200-cell manual differential leukocyte count). Statistical analysis was performed twice, i.e., prior to and after exclusion of specimens with graphical reports (dot plots) indicative of invalid separation of cellular populations. Coefficient of variation was <3 % (CBC) and <7 % (differential count) except for eosinophils and monocytes (cattle) and platelets (PLTs) (horse). Linearity was excellent except for equine platelets. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (r s) revealed a good to excellent (r s = 0.99–0.80) correlation between both analyzers for the majority of variables except for mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) (r s = 0.33–0.65), equine platelets assessed with impedance count (r s = 0.79), and monocytes (both species). Biases were close to 0; however, for MCHC, hemoglobin (HGB), and PLTs large biases were seen for both species. There was a favorable correlation with the reference methods for the majority of variables. The large biases of HGB and HGB-derived variables were caused by the methodology of the ADVIA. As for other analyzers, correct PLT and monocyte count are difficult. Dot plot analysis is a useful tool to detect invalid separation of cellular populations and thus the necessity to perform a manual differential count.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. Idexx, Westbrook, Maine

  2. Sysmex Corporation, Kobe, Japan

  3. Abbot Laboratories, Abbot Park, IL, USA

  4. Siemens, Medical solutions diagnostics, Eschborn, Germany

  5. Hematokrit 24, Hettich Zentrifugen, Tuttlingen, Germany

  6. RET search II, Sysmex, Norderstedt, Germany

  7. Stomatolyser 4DS, Sysmex, Norderstedt, Germany

  8. E-Check (XE), Sysmex, Norderstedt, Germany

  9. Analyze-it Software Ltd, Leeds, UK

  10. GraphPad Software Inc, La Jolla, CA, USA

Abbreviations

CBC:

Complete blood cell count

FSC:

Forward scatter

EOS:

Eosinophils

HGB:

Hemoglobin

HTC:

Hematocrit value

MCH:

Mean corpuscular hemoglobin

MCV:

Mean corpuscular volume

LYMPH:

Lymphocytes

MCHC:

Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration

MONO:

Monocytes

NEUT:

Neutrophils

PCV:

Packed cellular volume

PLT-I:

Platelets measured with impedance method

PLT-O:

Platelets measured with optical method

RBC:

Red blood cells

r s :

Spearmann's rho

SSC:

Side scatter

SFL:

Side fluorescence

WBC:

White blood cells

References

  • Bauer N, Moritz A (2008) Evaluation of three methods for measurement of hemoglobin and calculated hemoglobin parameters with the ADVIA 2120 and ADVIA 120 in dogs, cats, and horses. Vet Clin Pathol 37:173–179

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer N, Nakagawa J, Dunker C, Failing K, Moritz A (2011a) Evaluation of the automated hematology analyzer Sysmex XT-2000iV™ compared to the ADVIA® 2120 for its use in dogs, cats, and horses part I—precision, linearity, and accuracy of complete blood cell count. J Vet Diagn Invest 23:1168–1180

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer N, Nakagawa J, Dunker C, Failing K, Moritz A (2011b) Evaluation of the automated hematology analyzer Sysmex XT-2000iV™ compared to the ADVIA 2120® for its use in dogs, cats, and horses—Part II: accuracy of leukocyte differential and reticulocyte count, impact of anticoagulant and sample aging. J Vet Diagn Invest 24:74–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollinger PB, Drewinko B, Brailas CD et al (1987) The technicon H*1—an automated hematology analyzer for today and tomorrow. Complete blood count parameters. Am J Clin Pathol 87:71–78

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs C, Harrison P, Mashin SJ (2007) Continuing developments with the automated platelet count. Int J Lab Hematol 29:77–91

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holsteg M. (2002) Softwareadaptation und begleitende Evaluation des Hämatologiesystems ADVIA 120 für die Tierart Rind; Erstellung von hämatologischen Referenzbereichenfür die Rinderrassen schwarzbunte Holstein unddeutsches Fleckvieh., Thesis work

  • ICHS (1994) Guidelines for the evaluation of blood cell analysers including those used for differential leucocyte and reticulocyte counting and cell marker applications. International Council for Standardization in Haematology: prepared by the ICSH Expert Panel on Cytometry. Clin Lab Haematol 16:157–174

    Google Scholar 

  • IDEXX (2011) IDEXX ProCyte Dx operator's guide. Manual

  • Koepke J.A., Bentley S.A., Pierre R.V., et al. (1992) Reference leukocyte differential count (proportional) and evaluation of instrumental methods. NCCLS Document H-20-A, a reference method of the evaluation of automated differential counters, based on the visual differential count 12

  • Lilliehook I, Tvedten H (2009a) Validation of the Sysmex XT-2000iV hematology system for dogs, cats, and horses. I. Erythrocytes, platelets, and total leukocyte counts. Vet Clin Pathol 38:163–174

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilliehook I, Tvedten H (2009b) Validation of the Sysmex XT-2000iV hematology system for dogs, cats, and horses. II. Differential leukocyte counts. Vet Clin Pathol 38:175–182

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilliehook I, Tvedten H (2011) Errors in basophil enumeration with 3 veterinary hematology systems and observations on occurrence of basophils in dogs. Vet Clin Pathol. doi:10.1111/j.1939-165X.2011.00353.x

  • Moritz A (2001) Der Einsatz lasergestützer Multiparameter Hämatologiesysteme in der Veterinärmedizin (The use of automated laser-based multiparameter hematology systems in veterinary medicine). 1 ed Büchse der Pandora

  • Moritz A, Fickenscher Y, Meyer K et al (2004) Canine and feline hematology reference values for the ADVIA 120 hematology system. Vet Clin Pathol 133:32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papasouliotis K, Cue S, Crawford E, et al (2008) Comparison of white blood cell differential percentages determined by the in-house LaserCyte hematology analyzer and a manual method. Vet Clin Pathol 35:295–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrie A, Watson P (1999) Statistics for veterinary and animal science. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed GF, Lynn F, Meade BD (2002) Use of coefficient of variation in assessing variability of quantitative assays. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 9:1235–1239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi TE, Meinkoth JH, Clinkenbeard KD (2010) Normal hematology of the dog. In: Weiss DJ, Wardrop KJ (eds) Schalm's veterinary hematology. Blackwell, Ames, pp 799-–810

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumke CL (1960) Laboratory aids. Variability of results in differential cell counts on blood smears. Triangle 4:154–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Westgard JO (2003) Basic method validation. Westgard QC, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood D, Quiroz-Rocha GF (2010) Normal hematology of cattle. Schalm's veterinary hematology. Blackwell, Ames, pp 829–842

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors state that they do not have any conflict of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Clinical Pathophysiology and Clinical Pathology, Justus–Liebig University Giessen, Frankfurterstr. 126, 35392, Giessen, Germany

    Fee Goldmann, Natali Bauer & Andreas Moritz

Authors
  1. Fee Goldmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natali Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Moritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natali Bauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldmann, F., Bauer, N. & Moritz, A. Comparison of the ProCyte Dx analyzer with the ADVIA 2120 and the manual differential for validation of equine and bovine hemograms. Comp Clin Pathol 22, 855–868 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00580-012-1489-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00580-012-1489-3

Keywords

  • Hematology
  • Laser-based
  • In-house hematology analyzer
  • Large animals
  • Method validation