Abstract
A comprehensive evaluation was initiated to determine the suitability of the QBC-Vet Autoread haematology system for veterinary purposes in domestic and pet animal species. The system determines haematocrit (HCT), haemoglobin (HGB), white blood cell (WBC) count, granulocyte count, combined lymphocyte and monocyte count (L/M), platelet count, as well as eosinophil and neutrophil counts (canine samples only), and reticulocyte count (canine and feline samples only). Linearity assessed for a canine sample usually surpassed the physiological range. Within-batch precision was very good for the majority of the parameters in feline and canine samples: Coefficients of variation (CV) were below 5.5% for HCT, HGB and WBC. In order to test the accuracy of the system with respect to reference methods, a total of 300 blood samples from the Clinics of Internal Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (101 canine, 99 feline and 100 equine) were analysed. Strong linear correlation was demonstrated for HCT, HGB (rτ;/0.96) and WBC (rτ;/0.93) based on high correlation coefficients and narrow confidence intervals. A somewhat higher degree of variation from the estimated regression lines was found in differential blood cell counts, especially for eosinophil counts of the dog where the automated reader erroneously attributed some lymphocytes or monocytes to eosinophil counts. Accuracy of the system was also assessed with respect to clinical relevance of results. The majority of leukocytosis (50 of 53), neutrophilias (3 of 4), or eosinophilias (4 of 5) was detected properly by the QBC-Vet Autoread haematology system, but only 20 out of 35 leukopenic samples were identified correctly. The system detected the presence of reticulocytes in the majority of feline (9 of 10) and canine (6 of 7) samples with a regenerative anaemia. Unexpectedly, platelets of cats were measured with high within-batch precision (mean CV=4.64%). No ‘streaming’ effect (no discrimination between erythrocytes and granulocytes) was observed with this advanced QBC system. The system was found to be easy both in handling and interpretation of results. The buffy coat profile appeared particularly useful and informative. In conclusion, the QBC-Vet Autoread-System has excellent analytical properties and is well suited for veterinary purposes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bablok W, Passing H. (1985) Application of statistical procedures in analytical instrument testing. J Autom Chem 7:74–79
Bablok W, Passing H, Bender R et al. (1988) A general regression procedure for method transformation: application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry part III. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 26(11):783–790
Brown AA, Barsanti JA (1988) Quantitative buffy coat analysis for hematologic measurements of canine, feline, and equine blood samples and for detection of microfilaremia in dogs. Am J Vet Res 49(3):321–324
Coles EH (1986) Veterinary clinical pathology. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia
Eisenwiener HG, Bablok W, Bardorff W. et al. (1984) Statistische Auswertung beim Methodenvergleich. Lab Med 8:232–244
Fischer A, Lechner J, Kraft W et al. (1989) Test eines zentrifugalen Hämatologiesystems für die Praxis. Tierärztl Prax 17:227–230
Jackson JF (1961) Supravital blood studies, using acridine orange fluorescence. Blood 17(l):643–649
Jain NC (1986) Schalm’s veterinary hematology. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia
Knoll JS, Rowell SL (1996) Clinical hematology: in-clinic analysis, quality control, reference values and system selection. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 26(5):981–1002
Levine RA, Hart AH, Wardlaw SC (1986) Quantitative buffy coat analysis of blood collected from dogs, cats and horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc 189(6):670–673
Meister D, Tschudi P, Hermann M et al. (1990) Erfahrungen mit dem QBC-V-Hämatologiesystem an den Tierspitälern Zürich und Bern. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 132:261–266
Passing H, Bablok W (1983) A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods; application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 21:709–720
Paul RI, Badgett JT, Buchino JJ (1994) Evaluation of QBC Autoread performance in an emergency department setting. Pediatr Emerg Care 10(6):359–363
QBC Vet-Autoread User Manual (1994) IDEXX. Worrstadt, Germany
Sallitt RL, Ho TT, Rodriguez RR (1985) Evaluation of leukocyte differential counts on the QBC centrifugal hematology analyzer according to NCCLS Standard H 20-T. Blood Cells 11(2):281–294
Wardlaw SC, Levine RA (1983) Quantitative buffy coat analysis. A new laboratory tool functioning as a screening complete blood cell count. JAMA 249(5):617–620
Winkler GC, Engeli J, Rogg E et al. (1995) Evaluation of the Contraves AL 820 automated haematology analyser for domestic, pet and laboratory animals. Comp Haematol Int 5:130–139
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hofmann-Lehmann, R., Wegmann, D., Winkler, G.C. et al. Evaluation of the QBC-vet autoread haematology system for domestic and pet animal species. Comparative Haematology International 8, 108–116 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02642500
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02642500