Five fully automated methods for performing immature reticulocyte fraction: Comparison in diagnosis of bone marrow aplasia

Mauro Buttarello, Pietro Bulian, Giorgio Farina, Maria Grazia Petris, Valeria Temporin, Lucia Toffolo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

We performed a parallel evaluation of 5 automated reticulocyte counters to produce the immature reticulocyte fraction (IRF). We analyzed 225 samples from healthy control subjects, 115from patients with various diseases, 38 with advanced aplasia, and 22 in early erythropoietic recovery after chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation. The reference intervals were different for each instrument (ADVIA 120, 0.04-0.25; CELL DYN 4000, 0.15-0.35; GEN-S, 0.20-0.37; SE 9500 RET, 0.05-0.21; VEGA RETIC: 0.06-0.23). The imprecision, obtained by 1-way analysis of variance on duplicates, was satisfactory for clinical use for all methods (coefficient of variation, 7.6%-20.5% in healthy subjects), although it was higher than the analytic goal based on biologic variability within subjects. The comparison of different methods shows that agreement is good only between SE 9500 RET, CELL DYN 4000, and VEGA RETIC (r2 = 0.72-0.78). The study of diagnostic performance in distinguishing aplasia from early bone marrow recovery shows slightly different results (area under the curve from 0.70 for ADVIA 120 to 0.96 for SE 9500 RET). Even with slight differences, the fluorescence-based methods seem to be more robust than other methods for IRF measurement.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)871-879
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology
Volume117
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Keywords

  • Automated analyzers
  • Bone marrow aplasia
  • Immature reticulocyte fraction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Five fully automated methods for performing immature reticulocyte fraction: Comparison in diagnosis of bone marrow aplasia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this