Analytical agreement and clinical interchangeability of routine complete blood count parameters between the Atellica HEMA 580 and Sysmex XN-1000 analyzers: a CLSI EP09c study - Report - MDSpire

Analytical agreement and clinical interchangeability of routine complete blood count parameters between the Atellica HEMA 580 and Sysmex XN-1000 analyzers: a CLSI EP09c study

  • By

  • Quang Tung Nguyen

  • Van Tuan Pham

  • Chi Thanh Nguyen

  • Phuc Minh Hoang Nguyen

  • Dieu Huong Nguyen

  • Huong Lan Tong

  • July 2, 2026

  • 0 min

Share

Clinical Report: Evaluation of Analytical Consistency in CBC Testing

Overview

This study assessed the analytical agreement between the Atellica HEMA 580 and Sysmex XN-1000 analyzers for complete blood count parameters. Strong correlations were found for most parameters, although MCV and RDW-CV showed significant deviations.

Background

Complete blood count (CBC) testing is crucial for diagnosing and monitoring various hematological conditions. The introduction of new hematology analyzers necessitates validation of their analytical consistency to avoid misinterpretation of clinical results. This study follows CLSI EP09c guidelines to ensure reliable method comparison between two widely used analyzers.

Data Highlights

ParameterCorrelation CoefficientBiasOutcome
RBC0.999-1.48%A
HGB0.9981.54%A
WBC0.996-12.62 to 1.70Acceptable
PLT-I0.995-16.55 to 9.51Acceptable
MCVNot specifiedExceeds limitsNot optimal
RDW-CV0.848Broad limitsNot optimal

Key Findings

  • Strong analytical agreement for RBC, HGB, WBC, and PLT-I with correlation coefficients >0.98.
  • MCV showed proportional deviation with bias exceeding allowable limits.
  • RDW-CV demonstrated lower correlation (r = 0.848) and greater dispersion.
  • Bland–Altman analysis indicated narrow limits of agreement for RBC and HGB.
  • Lymphocyte count showed optimal agreement with bias of -1.12%.

Clinical Implications

Caution is advised when interpreting MCV and RDW-CV results due to significant analyzer-dependent differences.

Conclusion

The study highlights the need for careful interpretation of MCV and RDW-CV.

Related Resources & Content

  1. CLSI, EP09c, 3rd Edition -- Measurement Procedure Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples
  2. European Radiology — Evaluation of Blood Samples in vitro: Exploring the Relationship Between Laboratory Hemoglobin Levels and Dual-Energy CT Spectral Measurements
  3. Blood Cancer Journal — Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease Detection Methods: A Comparison of Multiparameter Flow Cytometry and Enhanced ASO RQ-PCR in Multiple Myeloma
  4. Blood Cancer Journal — Development of a Standardized Multiplex Assay for Quantitative Measurement of BCR–ABL1 on the International Reporting Scale
  5. Bone Marrow Transplantation — 50th Annual Congress of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation: Data Management Group – Poster Presentations (P771-P782)
  6. Frameworks and standards for method-comparison studies
  7. Recent evidence on analyzer agreement
  8. EN ISO 15189 revision: EFLM Committee Accreditation and I...
  9. ICSH guidance for internal quality control policy for blood cell counters - PubMed
  10. Performance evaluation the new automated Atellica Hema 580 hematology analyzer - PubMed
  11. Evaluation of the Novel Mindray BC-7800 and Sysmex XN-3000 Hematology Analyzers in Specimens With Platelet Interferences - PubMed
  12. Analytical performance specifications based on biological...
  13. EP28 | Defining, Establishing, and Verifying Reference Intervals in the Clinical Laboratory
  14. Normal and Abnormal Complete Blood Count With Differential - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

Original Source(s)

Related Content