Adv Lab Med. 2025 Nov 24;7(1):59-63. doi: 10.1515/almed-2025-0133. eCollection 2026 Mar.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analytical performance of platelet counts obtained by impedance- and optical-based methods on the DxH-900 and BC-6800 Plus analyzers, and by digital morphology using the CellaVision DM9600, in comparison with the international reference method (IRM), in samples with thrombocytopenia and both normal-sized and giant platelets.
METHODS: Platelet counts were analyzed in peripheral blood samples from patients with thrombocytopenia and normal platelet counts, including cases with normal-sized and giant platelets. Each sample was tested using two automated analyzers: the DxH-900 (impedance) and the BC-6800 Plus (impedance and optical). Results were compared with the IRM based on flow cytometry, performed on the DxFlex analyzer. Precision was assessed. The methods were compared by Passing-Bablok regression and bias calculation. Additionally, platelet morphology was reviewed digitally using CellaVision DM9600.
RESULTS: All methods demonstrated high precision and strong correlation with IRM in samples with normal-sized platelets. However, significant discrepancies were observed in the presence of giant platelets. Impedance methods showed higher imprecision (CV>10 %) and underestimated platelet counts with a negative bias exceeding -25 %. Conversely, the optical method showed better correlation (r=0.9888) and precision (CV=1.6 %), although it overestimated counts with a positive bias of 19.4 %. Digital morphology also demonstrated strong agreement with IRM.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the analytical limitations of routine technologies in challenging samples and emphasize the importance of method selection for accurate platelet reporting. A correction factor for optical counts and the integration of digital morphology could enhance diagnostic reliability in cases involving giant platelets.
PMID:41853790 | PMC:PMC12994698 | DOI:10.1515/almed-2025-0133