摘要
目的 探讨MCV对不同原理血液分析仪计数血小板结果的影响。方法 用电阻抗—浮动界标法、电阻抗—拟合曲线法、电阻抗—鞘流技术法、二维激光散射法4种方法计数血小板(MCV≥80 fl、70≤MCV<80 fl、MCV<70 fl)选取3组标本各2 0例,并与参考方法比较。结果 五种方法计数血小板经方差分析,MCV≥80 fl时,P>0 .0 5 ,各方法间未见显著差异,70≤MCV<80 fl时,各方法间计数结果有显著差异(0 .0 1 <P<0 .0 5 ) ,CD1 70 0与另外四种方法有显著差异,其它方法间未见差异。当MCV<70 fl时,P<0 .0 1 ,各方法间有非常显著差异,CD1 70 0、GEN'S与另外三种方法结果有显著差异,P<0 .0 5 ,ADVIA1 2 0、XE2 1 0 0和参考方法间计数血小板结果未见显著差异(P<0 .0 5 )。结论 有小红细胞的异常标本,二维激光散射法优于电阻抗法血液分析仪计数血小板。
Objective To probe into the effects of MCV on the PLT counting using Hematology Analyzers according to different principles.Methods Impedance method-floating threshold, impedance method-fitting curve, impedance method-sheath flow and two dimensional laser light scattering method were used to count 3 different groups of PLT(MCV≥80fl, 70≤MCV<80fl, MCV<70fl), and the results of these four methods were compared with those of reference method. Results Variance analysis showed that the five methods for PLT counting had not significant difference(P>0.05) when MCV≥ 80 fl. If the MCV of samples was between 70 and 80 fl or less than 70 fl, there was a significant difference(P<0.05) among these methods. The results by CD1700 or GEN,were significantly different(P<0.05) from other three methods, but there was no significant difference(P>0.05) among ADVIA120, XE2100 and reference methods.Conclusion The two-dimensional laser light scattering method is superior to the impedance method when the abnormal sample with small red blood cells was detected.
出处
《西部医学》
2005年第3期268-270,共3页
Medical Journal of West China
