Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Although widely used, the ADVIA 120 hematology analyzer has not been previously validated for determining the differential leukocyte count in goats.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the differential leukocyte counts provided by the ADVIA 120 (A-diff) and the manual method (M-Diff) in goats.
METHODS: EDTA blood samples that were analyzed within 4 h of collection were used in the study. The following exclusion criteria were applied: inappropriately filled tubes or tubes containing clots, erroneous ADVIA peroxidase cytograms, and blood smears of poor quality. The A-Diff was compared with the M-Diff performed by two independent observers on 200 leukocytes.
RESULTS: Forty samples were included after previously excluding eight samples. The correlation between the A-Diff and M-Diff was very strong for eosinophils (r = .870, p < .001) and strong for lymphocytes (r = .796, p < .001) and neutrophils (r = .730, p < .001), while no significant correlation was observed for monocytes (r = .026, p = .872). The Passing-Bablok regression analyses revealed statistically significant constant errors for neutrophils (5.83%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41%, 12.18%) and eosinophils (1.89%; 95% CI: 1.17%, 2.71%). Bland-Altman analyses showed a statistically significant negative bias for lymphocytes (-5.0%) and a statistically significant positive bias for eosinophils (2.2%). The very low basophil percentages precluded a meaningful method comparison.
CONCLUSIONS: The ADVIA 120 overall demonstrated good performance for the differential WBC count in goats under the conditions of this study. Therefore, it can be considered suitable for routine hematologic screening in goats. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that any abnormal result should be confirmed with a blood smear evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the differential leukocyte counts provided by the ADVIA 120 (A-diff) and the manual method (M-Diff) in goats.
METHODS: EDTA blood samples that were analyzed within 4 h of collection were used in the study. The following exclusion criteria were applied: inappropriately filled tubes or tubes containing clots, erroneous ADVIA peroxidase cytograms, and blood smears of poor quality. The A-Diff was compared with the M-Diff performed by two independent observers on 200 leukocytes.
RESULTS: Forty samples were included after previously excluding eight samples. The correlation between the A-Diff and M-Diff was very strong for eosinophils (r = .870, p < .001) and strong for lymphocytes (r = .796, p < .001) and neutrophils (r = .730, p < .001), while no significant correlation was observed for monocytes (r = .026, p = .872). The Passing-Bablok regression analyses revealed statistically significant constant errors for neutrophils (5.83%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41%, 12.18%) and eosinophils (1.89%; 95% CI: 1.17%, 2.71%). Bland-Altman analyses showed a statistically significant negative bias for lymphocytes (-5.0%) and a statistically significant positive bias for eosinophils (2.2%). The very low basophil percentages precluded a meaningful method comparison.
CONCLUSIONS: The ADVIA 120 overall demonstrated good performance for the differential WBC count in goats under the conditions of this study. Therefore, it can be considered suitable for routine hematologic screening in goats. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that any abnormal result should be confirmed with a blood smear evaluation.
摘要：
背景：尽管使用广泛，ADVIA120血液学分析仪之前尚未对山羊的白细胞分类计数进行过验证.
目的：本研究的目的是比较ADVIA120（A-diff）和手动方法（M-Diff）在山羊中提供的分类白细胞计数。
方法：在研究中使用在收集后4小时内分析的EDTA血样。应用以下排除标准：不适当填充的管或含有凝块的管，错误的ADVIA过氧化物酶细胞图，和质量差的血涂片。将A-Diff与由两个独立观察者对200个白细胞进行的M-Diff进行比较。
结果：先前排除了8个样本后，纳入了40个样本。A-Diff和M-Diff之间的相关性对于嗜酸性粒细胞非常强（r=.870，p<.001），对于淋巴细胞（r=.796，p<.001）和嗜中性粒细胞（r=.730，p<.001），而单核细胞没有观察到显著的相关性（r=0.026，p=.872）。Passing-Bablok回归分析显示，中性粒细胞具有统计学意义的恒定误差（5.83％；95％置信区间[CI]：0.41％，12.18%）和嗜酸性粒细胞（1.89%；95%CI：1.17%，2.71%）。Bland-Altman分析显示，淋巴细胞具有统计学意义的负偏倚（-5.0％），嗜酸性粒细胞具有统计学意义的正偏倚（2.2％）。极低的嗜碱性粒细胞百分比排除了有意义的方法比较。
结论：在本研究条件下，ADVIA120总体上证明了山羊WBC计数差异的良好表现。因此,它可以被认为适用于山羊的常规血液学筛查。尽管如此，应该强调的是，任何异常结果都应该通过血液涂片评估来确认。
目的：本研究的目的是比较ADVIA120（A-diff）和手动方法（M-Diff）在山羊中提供的分类白细胞计数。
方法：在研究中使用在收集后4小时内分析的EDTA血样。应用以下排除标准：不适当填充的管或含有凝块的管，错误的ADVIA过氧化物酶细胞图，和质量差的血涂片。将A-Diff与由两个独立观察者对200个白细胞进行的M-Diff进行比较。
结果：先前排除了8个样本后，纳入了40个样本。A-Diff和M-Diff之间的相关性对于嗜酸性粒细胞非常强（r=.870，p<.001），对于淋巴细胞（r=.796，p<.001）和嗜中性粒细胞（r=.730，p<.001），而单核细胞没有观察到显著的相关性（r=0.026，p=.872）。Passing-Bablok回归分析显示，中性粒细胞具有统计学意义的恒定误差（5.83％；95％置信区间[CI]：0.41％，12.18%）和嗜酸性粒细胞（1.89%；95%CI：1.17%，2.71%）。Bland-Altman分析显示，淋巴细胞具有统计学意义的负偏倚（-5.0％），嗜酸性粒细胞具有统计学意义的正偏倚（2.2％）。极低的嗜碱性粒细胞百分比排除了有意义的方法比较。
结论：在本研究条件下，ADVIA120总体上证明了山羊WBC计数差异的良好表现。因此,它可以被认为适用于山羊的常规血液学筛查。尽管如此，应该强调的是，任何异常结果都应该通过血液涂片评估来确认。
