Abstract:Objective To investigate the appropriate setting up of normal reference ranges of lymphocyte subsets in some flow cytometry laboratories and to study the effects of different flow cytometers and various reagents by different manufacturers on the analysis of peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets. Methods Three FCM labs (named A, B and C) in Beijing region were selected representing 3 commonly used flow cytometers (Beckman Coulter Epics XL, Beckman Coulter Cytomics FC500, BD FACS Calibur). 50 samples from healthy donors were distributed to 3 labs and tested according to individual lab's standard operating procedure to verify whether the normal reference ranges of peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets established were appropriate. The application of internal quality control was also investigated. Commercial blood quality control reagents were given to the 3 FCM labs and tested within 20 working days paralleled with routine samples. In addition, 20 patients' samples were prepared using 4 different combinations of reagents ( a , b , c and d). The results from combination a, which used the Beckman Coulter reagents and instrument, were compared to the results from combination b, c and d, which used reagents from different manufacturers. Then the prepared samples were tested on Beckman Coulter Epics XL to evaluate the effects of different combinations of reagents on the results of peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets analyzed by the same instrument. Furthermore, 24 patients' samples prepared by same reagents from Beckman Coulter company were tested on both Beckman Coulter Epics XL and BD FACS Calibur respectively to assess the effects of different instruments on peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets. 20 patients' samples prepared by same reagents and instruments were analyzed by Beckman Coulter Epics XL analytic system and BD FACS Calibur analytic system respectively to assess the effects of the two analytic systems on the lymphocyte subsets. Results Over 10% of the results for NK and T4/T8 in lab A as well as T4 in labs B and C fell outside of their normal reference ranges. The probabilities exceeding corresponding normal reference ranges were 16% ( 9/50 ), 24% ( 12/50 ), 22% (11/50) and 12% ( 6/50 ), respectively. The results using internal blood quality control in 3 FCM labs within 20 working days were all within the reference ranges of the quality control provided by the kit. The biases from b and c reagent combinations were substantial compared with that of reagent a combination. Among the biases from b and c reagent combinations, the lowest probability of bias exceeding 10% was T8 of combination b, which had probability of 70% (14/20). The highest probabilities of hias exceeding 10% were T3 and T4 of b and c reagent combinations, which reached 100% (20/20) . Furthermore, the biases of T3, T8 and B of d reagent combination compared with that of reagent a combination were also substantial. The probabilities of bias exceeding 10% were 35% (7/20) ,85% (17/20) and 75% (15/20), respectively. Comparing the results of samples prepared and analyzed by reagents and instruments from different manufacturers to that of samples prepared and analyzed by the same company's reagents and instruments showed that there were great discrepancies in T3, T4 , T8 , B and NK. The probabilities of bias exceeding 10% were 71% ( 17/24), 80% (19/24) ,38% (9/24), 33% (8/24) and 92% (22/24), respectively. The biases of T8, NK and B were substantial when compared the results from Beckman Coulter Epics XL analytic systems and BD FACS Calibur analytic systems. The probabilities of bias exceeding 10% were 55% (11/20 ), 70% ( 14/20 ) and 55% (11/20), respectively. Conclusions FCM labs should set up their own normal reference range for peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets. The normal reference range should be verified periodically. It is important to apply internal blood quality control regularly and accumulate the quality control results. The reagents and instrument for preparing peripheral blood samples should be from the same manufacturers.

Anti-coagulant Fresh Whole Blood on Different Hematology Analyzers: a Contrast Test

Analysis and evaluation of test results acquired from three different types of hematology analyzers

Establishment of Comparative Test Program for Verification Test with Different Blood Cell Analyzers

Clinical application of comparison of hematology analyzer by using fresh whole blood transfer method

Evaluation of Sysmex Hematology Analyzers with Fresh Blood

Comparison of the results' consistency of 3 automated coagulation analyzers for coagulation items

Comparison test of blood cell counts between different hospitals

Harmonization of the Results of Automated Coagulation Tests with Different Analyzers

Influence of systematic discrepancy in coagulation tests on clinical decision

Analytical Comparison Between Two Hematological Analyzer Systems: Mindray BC‐5180 Vs Sysmex XN‐1000

Comparison of Different Assay System for C-reactive Protein Detection

Establishment of Method and Verification for Leukocyte Differential Count of Sysmex Hematology Analyzer

Results Comparison of Biochemical Examination Between Different Blood Samples

Comparison Of Test Results And Performances Of Hitachi 7600 And Beckman Olympus 5800 Automatic Biochemical Analyzers

Evaluation for Clinical Application of UniCel DxH 800 Hematology Analyzer

Effects of Different Analytic Systems on the Immunophenotypic Analysis of Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subsets by Flow Cytometry

Method comparison between Alinity hq and Sysmex XT-4000i in an emergency laboratory

The comparison of the results of 9 routine biochemistry items on 3 different biochemical testing systems

Comparison of five automated hematology analyzers in a university hospital setting: Abbott Cell-Dyn Sapphire, Beckman Coulter DxH 800, Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XE-5000, and Sysmex XN-2000

Calibrate Different Hematology Analyzers in one Laboratory Using Fresh Blood Sample Combination of Commercial Calibrator

Influence and Correction of Hemolysis on the Accuracy of Biochemical Tests