Volume 44, Issue 5 pp. 846-853
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate measurements using MIX-RATE® X20 and VISION A automated analyzers: Method validation and comparison study

Eakachai Prompetchara

Eakachai Prompetchara

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Search for more papers by this author
Sunudda Nowaratsopon

Sunudda Nowaratsopon

Division of Laboratory Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

Search for more papers by this author
Suppakorn Wongkamchai

Suppakorn Wongkamchai

Division of Laboratory Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

Search for more papers by this author
Jittra Srieakpanit

Jittra Srieakpanit

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Search for more papers by this author
Chutitorn Ketloy

Corresponding Author

Chutitorn Ketloy

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Correspondence

Chutitorn Ketloy, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 16 June 2022

Abstract

Background

The Westergren method for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) measurement has a few drawbacks such as being a time-consuming process, poses a risk of biohazard exposure and requires high sample volume. Recent alternative methods and analyzers were developed to overcome those limitations. In this study, we validated two automated ESR analyzers, MIX-RATE® X20 and VISION A, and assessed their analytical performance against the Westergren method.

Methods

The analyzers were validated for inter-run and intra-run precision. Hemolysis interference and sensitivity to fibrinogen were also analysed. Analytical performance was performed using 177 patient samples spanning low (<40 mm/h), medium (40–80 mm/h), and high (>80 mm/h) ESR ranges. Method agreement and bias against the Westergren method were calculated.

Results

The highest intra-run imprecision was seen in the low ESR range for both analyzers. They showed very high agreement with the Westergren method assessed by Spearmen rank correlation coefficient analysis, r = 1.000, p < .0001 for both analyzers. Bland–Altman analysis yielded overall insignificant mean biases for all comparisons. However, systematic positive and negative bias were observed at medium and high ESR levels analysed by MIX-RATE® X20 while negative bias was evidenced in the high ESR level measured by VISION A.

Conclusions

Overall, results from both automated ESR analyzers showed comparable analytical performance with the Westergren method especially for low ESR levels. However, both positive and negative systematic bias were documented in the high levels. Thus, for clinical use, it must be assessed whether these biases could affect the cut-off for significant clinical values.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.