■红细胞沉降率(ESR)是临床实践中广泛使用的筛查测试,作为炎性和退行性恶性疾病的指标。韦斯特格伦方法,被誉为黄金标准,因其准确性和成本效益而受到重视,但需要相当长的时间和血量。新兴的自动化方法提供了更快、更方便的替代方案,旨在取代手动技术。尽管如此,根据参考韦斯特格伦方法验证这些自动化方法对于确保可靠性至关重要。因此,这项研究旨在评估从参考韦斯特格伦方法和自动(SFRIESR3000)方法获得的ESR测量结果。
■于2023年7月15日至9月16日在Jigjiga大学SheikHassenYabare转诊医院进行了基于医院的比较横断面研究。在获得知情同意书后,从158名参与者中获得了血液样本,每个参与者的五毫升血液。然后使用Westergren(参考)方法和自动(SFRIESR3000)方法对这些样品进行ESR估算。随后,使用SPSS20版和MedCalc12.3.0.0版统计软件对收集的数据进行分析.统计分析,如配对t检验,皮尔逊相关性,线性回归,布兰德和奥特曼的阴谋也被利用了.P值<0.05被认为是统计学上显著的。
■配对样本t检验分析显示,使用参考韦斯特格伦方法与ESR测定的自动化方法之间没有显着差异,平均差(MD)为0.7±9.2mm/h(P=0.36)。此外,在两种方法之间观察到显著的相关性,相关系数显著(r=0.94,p<0.001)。Bland-Altman数据分析表明没有系统偏差的证据,并且证明了两种方法之间ESR值的良好一致性。协议限制为-17.3至+18.7。此外,在一系列ESR值的自动方法的运行中不精确分析显示,低的变异系数为27.08,12.65和10.32%,中等,和高ESR水平,分别。
■SFRIESR300自动化方法证明了与Westergren方法可互换使用以确定ESR的潜力,考虑到强相关性和良好的一致性。此外,在解释过程中可以应用相同的参考范围。
UNASSIGNED: Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is a widely used screening test in clinical practice as an indicator of inflammatory and degenerative malignant diseases. The Westergren method, renowned as the gold standard, is valued for its accuracy and cost-effectiveness but demands considerable time and blood volume. Emerging
automated methods offer quicker and more convenient alternatives, aiming to replace manual techniques. Nonetheless, validating these
automated methods against the reference Westergren method is essential to ensure reliability. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate ESR measurement results obtained from both the reference Westergren method and the
automated (SFRI ESR 3000) method.
UNASSIGNED: A Hospital-based comparative cross-sectional study was conducted at Jigjiga University Sheik Hassen Yabare Referral Hospital from July 15 to September 16, 2023. Following the acquisition of informed consent, blood samples were obtained from 158 participants, five milliliters of blood from each participant. These samples were then subjected to ESR estimation using both the Westergren (reference) method and the automated (SFRI ESR 3000) method. Subsequently, the collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 and MedCalc version 12.3.0.0 statistical Softwares. Statistical analyses such as Paired t-tests, Pearson correlation, linear regression, and the Bland and Altman plot were employed. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
UNASSIGNED: The paired sample t-test analysis revealed no significant difference between the use of the reference Westergren method and the automated method for ESR determination, with a mean difference (MD) of 0.7 ± 9.2 mm/h (P = 0.36). Additionally, a significant correlation was observed between the two methods, with a remarkable correlation coefficient (r = 0.94, p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman data analysis indicated no evidence of systematic bias and demonstrated good agreement of ESR values between the two methods, with a limit of agreement of -17.3 to +18.7. Moreover, within-run imprecision analysis for the
automated method across a range of ESR values showed coefficient of variation of 27.08, 12.65, and 10.32% for low, medium, and high ESR levels, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The SFRI ESR 300
automated method demonstrates the potential for interchangeable use with the Westergren method for determining ESR, given the strong correlation and good agreement. Additionally, the same reference range could be applied during interpretation.