Evaluation of the automated coagulation analyzer CS-5100 and its utility in high throughput laboratories

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 52, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1193-1202

  Ratzinger, Franz ^a   Schmetterer, Klaus G ^a   Haslacher, Helmuth ^a   Perkmann, Thomas ^a   Belik, Sabine ^a   Quehenberger, Peter ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

analyzer comparison; Bland Altman plot; coefficient of variation; CS 5100; partial correlation coefficient; Passing Bablok regression

Indexed keywords

BILIRUBIN; HEMOGLOBIN; TRIACYLGLYCEROL;

ARTICLE; BLOOD ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT; BLOOD CLOTTING TEST; CLINICAL LABORATORY; COAGULATION ANALYZER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EVALUATION STUDY; HEMOLYSIS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL NORMALIZED RATIO; LABORATORY AUTOMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TRIACYLGLYCEROL BLOOD LEVEL; AUTOMATION; BLOOD CLOTTING; DEVICES; LABORATORY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

AUTOMATION; BLOOD COAGULATION; BLOOD COAGULATION TESTS; HUMANS; LABORATORIES;

EID: 84904013994     PISSN: 14346621     EISSN: 14374331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2013-1094     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Söderberg J, Jonsson PA, Wallin O, Grankvist K, Hultdin J. Haemolysis index-An estimate of preanalytical quality in primary health care. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:940-4.
2. Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, Green S, Kitchen S, Palicka V, et al. Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:764-72.
3. Favaloro EJ, Lippi G, Adcock DM. Preanalytical and postanalytical variables: the leading causes of diagnostic error in hemostasis? Semin Thromb Hemost 2008;34:612-34.
4. Forsman RW. Why is the laboratory an afterthought for managed care organizations? Clin Chem 1996;42:813-6.
5. Passing H, Bablok. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983;21:709-20.
6. Martin Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurment. Lancet 1986;327:307-10.
7. Hanneman SK. Design, analysis, and interpretation of method comparison studies. AACN Adv Crit Care 2008;19: 223-34.
8. Pearson ECFHOHES. Tests for rank correlation coefficients. I. Biometrika 1957;44:470-81.
9. Richard L. Gorsuch CS. Correlation coefficients: mean bias and confidence interval distortions. J Methods Meas Soc Sci 2010;1:52-65.
10. Fisher RA. Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika 1915;10:507-21.
11. Salvagno GL, Lippi G, Bassi A, Poli G, Guidi GC. Prevalence and type of pre-Analytical problems for inpatients samples in coagulation laboratory. J Eval Clin Pract 2008;14:351-3.
12. Green SF. The cost of poor blood specimen quality and errors in preanalytical processes. Clin Biochem 2013;46:1175-9.
13. Fischer F, Appert-Flory A, Jambou D, Toulon P. Evaluation of the automated coagulation analyzer Sysmex CA-7000. Thromb Res 2006;117:721-9.
14. Quehenberger P, Kapiotis S, Handler S, Ruzicka K, Speiser W. Evaluation of the automated coagulation analyzer SYSMEX CA 6000. Thromb Res 1999;96:65-71.
15. Appert-Flory A, Fischer F, Jambou D, Toulon P. Evaluation and performance characteristics of the automated coagulation analyzer ACL TOP. Thromb Res 2007;120:733-43.
16. Milos M, Herak DC, Zadro R. Discrepancies between APTT results determined with different evaluation modes on automated coagulation analyzers. Int J Lab Hematol 2010;32:33-9.
17. Molenaar PJ, Leyte A. Pre-Acquisition system assessment of the Sysmex(®) Coagulation System CS-2100i and comparison with end-user verification; a model for the regional introduction of new analysers and methods. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1479-89.
18. de Bie P, Schornagel WJ, van den Dool EJ, Bakker B, van Dam W, Heckman M, et al. Laboratory evaluation of the Coasys® Plus C coagulation analyzer. Thromb Res 2013;131:357-62.
19. Mullier F, Vanpee D, Jamart J, Dubuc E, Bailly N, Douxfils J, et al. Comparison of five D-dimer reagents and application of an age-Adjusted cut-off for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in emergency department. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2013 Nov 15. [Epub ahead of print].
20. Park SJ, Chi HS, Chun SH, Jang S, Park CJ. Evaluation of performance including influence by interfering substances of the innovance D-dimer assay on the Sysmex coagulation analyzer. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2011;41:20-4.
21. Jennings I, Woods TA, Kitchen DP, Kitchen S, Walker ID. Laboratory D-dimer measurement: improved agreement between methods through calibration. Thromb Haemost 2007;98:1127-35.
22. Milos M, Herak D, Kuric L, Horvat I, Zadro R. Evaluation and performance characteristics of the coagulation system: ACL TOP analyzer-HemosIL reagents. Int J Lab Hematol 2009;31:26-35.
23. Flanders MM, Crist R, Safapour S, Rodgers GM. Evaluation and performance characteristics of the STA-R coagulation analyzer. Clin Chem 2002;48:1622-4.
24. Magari RT. Bias estimation in method comparison studies. J Biopharm Stat 2004;14:881-92.
25. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135-60.
26. Bilic-Zulle L. Comparison of methods: Passing and Bablok regression. Biochem Med 2011;21:49-52.