Abstract

The use of hematological counts for the prevention, diagnosis and follow-up of hematological diseases has increl Indeed. the correct operation of a clinical laboratory is essential to producing comparable results. However, there is a paucity of validation and reproducibility studies among the different existing methods for clinical analysis. Therefore, our aim was to assess the commutability of the results provided by analyzers with different measuring systems. Sixty venous blood samples were obtained from patients, without discriminating for age or sex. Then, an automated hematological analysis was performed using the Cell-Dyn Ruby and I IumaCount 5L instruments. The variables measured were: RBC, Hb, HCT, MCV, MCH and MCHC. The data were compared by a one-way ANOVA and Pearson's correlation coefficient. Statistical significance was fixed at p < 0.05. There were no statistically significant differences for RBC, HCT, MCH or MCHC. In addition, with the exception of MCHC, all the analytes showed a good correlation coefficient between the two instruments. There is a variety of automated systems for the clinical laboratory and it is essential for the clinician to know the different methodologies used in hematological analyzers as well as their sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, our results are useful for demonstrating the importance of practical knowledge of the analyzers mentioned.