Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Ahead Of Print Login 
Users Online: 1464
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 54  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 70-74

Evaluation of an automated erythrocyte sedimentation rate analyzer as compared to the Westergren manual method in measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate


Department of Laboratory Medicine, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma centre, AIIMS, New Delhi - 110 029, India

Correspondence Address:
Arulselvi Subramanian
Department of Lab Medicine, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma centre, AIIMS, New Delhi - 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0377-4929.77328

Rights and Permissions

Context: Monitor 100® (Electa Lab, Italy) is a newly developed automated method for measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Aims: The aim of our study was to compare the ESR values by Monitor 100® against the standard Westergren method. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a Level I trauma care center on 200 patients. The samples taken were as per the recommendations charted out by International Council for Standardization in Hematology (ICSH) for comparing automated and manual Westergrens method. Statistical Analysis Used: Bland and Altman statistical analysis was applied for evaluating Monitor 100® against the conventional Westergren method. Results: The analysis revealed a low degree of agreement between the manual and automated methods especially for higher ESR values, mean difference -11.2 (95% limits of agreement, -46.3 to 23.9) and mean difference -13.4 (95% limits of agreement-58.9 to 32.1) for 1 and 2 hours, respectively. This discrepancy which is of clinical significance was less evident for ESR values in the normal range <25 mm/hour (-7.7 mean of difference; -18.9 to 3.5 limits of agreement). Conclusions: The fully automated system Monitor 100® for ESR measurement tends to underestimate the manual ESR readings. Hence it is recommended that a correction factor be applied for the range of ESR values while using this equipment. Further studies and validation experiments would be required.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed15205    
    Printed254    
    Emailed11    
    PDF Downloaded544    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal