Compare the accuracy and precision of Coulter LH780, Mindray BC-6000 Plus, and Sysmex XN-9000 with the international reference flow cytometric method in platelet counting.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of different platelet counting methods (optical, impedance, fluorescence and hand counting) applied in different analysers by comparing with the international flow cytometric reference method (IRM).MethodsA total of 333 blood samples from different subgroups (168 cases with thrombocytopenia, 136 cases with normal platelet counts and 29 cases with thrombocytosis) were tested. Regarding IRM as the gold standard, we compared the accuracy and precision of different platelet count methods; i.e. LH780 (impedance), BC-6000 Plus (optical (O) and impedance (I)), Sysmex XN-9000 (optical (O), impedance (I), fluorescence (F)), and hand counting.ResultsSysmex XN-9000-F (r = 0.988) had the best correlation with IRM for thrombocytopenic samples; BC-6000 Plus-I (r = 0.966) was more relevant to IRM than any other method for samples with normal platelet counts. Correlation between Sysmex XN-9000-I (r = 0.960) and IRM was the highest among these methods for samples with thrombocytosis. For bias evaluation, the average bias of Sysmex XN-9000-F was -1.5 × 109/L (95% LA = -9.4 to +6.4) for samples with thrombocytopenia, compared with IRM. BC-6000 Plus-I had a small mean difference with IRM for samples with normal platelet counts or thrombocytosis. Moreover, all evaluated methods had acceptable sensitivity, specificity, and concordance rates as compared with IRM in the diagnosis of thrombocytopenia and thrombocytosis.ConclusionsPlatelet counting by Sysmex XN-9000-F is more accurate than other methods for thrombocytopenic samples. BC-6000 Plus-I has superior association and consistency for normal platelet counts. As for thrombocytosis patients, Sysmex XN-9000-I has the highest correlation with IRM while Sysmex XN-9000-O has the highest diagnosis efficacy