4.3 Article

Modifications of Haematology Analyzers to Improve Cell Counting and Leukocyte Differentiating in Cerebrospinal Fluid Controls of the Joint German Society for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Journal

CYTOMETRY PART A
Volume 75A, Issue 8, Pages 688-691

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.20753

Keywords

CSF cell analysis; haematology analyzers; chamber cell counting; flow cytometry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Flow cytometry (FCM) is used with haematology analyzers (HAs) to count cells and differentiate leukocytes in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). To evaluate the FCM techniques of HAs, 10 external DGKL trials with CSF controls were carried out in 2004 to 2008. Eight single platform HAs with and without CSF equipment were evaluated with living blood leukocytes and erythrocytes in CSF like DGKL controls: Coulter (LH750,755), Abbott CD3200 (TM), CD3500 (TM), CD3700 (TM), CD4000 (TM) Sapphir, ADVIA 120 (R) CSF assay, and Sysmex XE-2100 (R). Results were compared with visual counting of native cells in Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber, unstained, and absolute values of leukocyte differentiation, assayed by dual platform analysis with immune-FCM (FACSCalibur (TM), CD45, CD14) and the chamber counts. Reference values X were compared with HA values Y by statistical evaluation with Passing/Bablock (P/B) linear regression analysis to reveal conformity of both methods. The HAs, studied, produced no valid results with DGKL CSF controls, because P/B regression revealed no conformity with the reference values due to:-blank problems with impedance analysis,-leukocyte loss with preanalytical erythrocyte lysis procedures, especially of monocytes,-inaccurate results with ADVIA cell sphering and cell differentiation with algorithms and enzyme activities (e.g., peroxidase). HA techniques have to be improved, e.g., using no erythrocyte lysis and CSF adequate techniques, to examine CSF samples precise and accurate. (C) 2009 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available