LAUSR

Introduction Automated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) analysers are based on different methodology than Westergren method. It is questionable whether ESR values obtained from those analysers are comparable with determined values with Westergren method. The aim was verification of the precision, method comparison and accuracy of automated ESR analysers: Roller 20PN (Alifax S.p.A., Polverara, Italy) and iSED (Alcor Scientific, Smithfield, USA). Materials and methods Blood samples (N = 752 for Roller 20PN and N = 213 for iSED) were sampled into K2EDTA (Kima, Italy) tubes for automated and 3.8% Na-citrate tubes (Kima, Italy) for Westergren method. The data was divided into three groups according to the ESR values obtained with the Westergren method: Group Low (L) (ESR ≤ 20 mm), Group Medium (M) (ESR 21-60 mm), and Group High (H) (ESR ≥ 61 mm). Method agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and Passing-Bablok regression. Results Analyser iSED has shown better comparability with Westergren method (bias 0.0 (95%Cl -1.4 to 1.5) range than Roller 20 PN (bias = - 6.4 (95%Cl - 7.1 to -5.7) in the whole measuring. For Roller 20 PN, Passing-Bablok regression has shown constant and proportional difference for Groups L and M, and for iSED only for Group H. Roller 20 PN had lower sensitivity (0.51 (95%Cl: 0.45-0.57) than iSED (0.72 (95%Cl: 0.59-0.80) while they had comparable specificity (> 0.90) and accuracy (≥ 0.80) in comparison with the Westergren method. Conclusion Both analysers are not comparable with the Westergren method and should not be used interchangeably.