Journal Information
Journal ID (publisher-id): BM
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Biochem Med (Zagreb)
Title: Biochemia Medica
Abbreviated Title: Biochem. Med. (Zagreb)
ISSN (print): 1330-0962
ISSN (electronic): 1846-7482
Publisher: Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Article Information
Copyright statement: ©Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine.
Copyright: 2023, Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry
License (open-access):
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Date received: 24 October 2022
Date accepted: 25 March 2023
Publication date (print and electronic): 15 June 2023
Volume: 33
Issue: 2
Electronic Location Identifier: 020703
Publisher ID: bm-33-2-020703
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2023.020703
Analytical verification of the Dymind D7-CRP automated analyser
Merima Čolić[*]
Author notes:
[*] Corresponding author: colic.merima@gmail.com
Introduction
The aim of this study was to perform a verification of the Dymind D7-CRP automated analyser and compare it with established analysers.
Materials and methods
Analytical verification included estimation of repeatability, between run precision, within-laboratory precision, and bias in control samples with low, normal and high levels. The acceptance criteria for analytical verification were defined using the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) 2019 Biological Variation Database. Method comparison between the Dymind D7-CRP and the Sysmex XN1000 for haematological parameters and the Dymind D7-CRP and the Beckman Coulter AU680 for CRP values was performed on 40 patient samples.
Results
Analytical verification criteria were adequately met with the exception of monocyte count for repeatability and within-laboratory precision (13.4% and 11.5%, respectively, acceptance criteria 10.1%) and measurement uncertainty (23.0, acceptance criteria 20.0%) at low level, eosinophil count for BIAS at the low level (37.7%, acceptance criteria 25.2%), basophil count (BAS) for BIAS at the high level (14.2%, acceptance criteria 10.9%), and mean platelet volume (MPV) for repeatability (4.2% and 6.8%), between run precision (2.2% and 4.7%), within-laboratory precision (4.0% and 7.3%) (acceptance criteria 1.7%), and measurement uncertainty (8.0 and 14.6%, acceptance criteria 3.4%) at both the low and high concentrations. Method comparison showed no clinically significant constant or proportional differences for all parameters except BAS and MPV.
Keywords: blood cell count; C-reactive protein; haematology; verification
