Context: Many hematology laboratories have adopted semi-automated digital platforms for routine use and the evidence supporting their use is increasing.
Aims: The CellaVision platforms are among the most thoroughly studied digital hematology platforms; we wished to determine the accuracy of CellaVision for reticulocyte counting.
Design materials and methods: We compared reticulocyte counts performed manually, using the Beckman Coulter LH750 automated analyzer and with the CellaVision DM96 platform. We analyzed the results for pair-wise correlation and bias, and precision.
Statistical analyses used: Analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS), including Spearman's rho correlation coefficient, Friedman's two-way Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) for comparison of distributions; bias was compared by way of mean and standard deviation.
Results: The CellaVision reticulocyte counts correlated most strongly with those of the analyzer (often considered the benchmark test); the reticulocyte count distributions were noted not to be significantly different from each other across all three methods. The mean and standard deviation of bias were lowest in the comparison of CellaVision and LH750 counts.
Conclusions: Our data provide additional support for the accuracy of digital hematology applications using the CellaVision DM96 platform.
Keywords: Accuracy; CellaVision; digital hematology; laboratory automation; reticulocyte.