Reference intervals for absolute and percentage immature platelet fraction using the Sysmex XN-10 automated haematology analyser in a UK population. (17th November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ali, Usman; Knight, Gavin; Gibbs, Roz; Tsitsikas, Dimitris A.
• Is Part Of: Scandinavian journal of clinical & laboratory investigation. Volume 77:Number 8(2017)
• Page Start: 658
• Page End: 664
• Publication Date: 2017-11-17
• Subjects: Reference values -- blood platelet -- haematology -- thrombocytopenia -- blood cell count -- haematologic tests -- haematologic diseases -- clinical laboratory techniques -- clinical laboratory services -- UK; Clinical biochemistry -- Periodicals; Physiology, Pathological -- Periodicals; Physiology, Experimental -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 616.0072
• DOI: 10.1080/00365513.2017.1394488
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0036-5513

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Immature platelet fraction (IPF) estimation is a non-invasive and sensitive test that is available on recently introduced Sysmex XN-series of automated haematology analysers. It is a direct cellular indicator of thrombopoiesis. The aim of this study was to establish reference intervals for IPF, for both absolute (A-IPF) and percentage (%-IPF) measurements. Material and methods: A total of 2366 samples that met the inclusion criteria were assayed for full blood count on the Sysmex XN-10 and a non-parametric percentile method was used for calculating the reference intervals. Results: After the outliers were excluded, the reference interval for %-IPF and A-IPF on Sysmex XN-10 were 1.6–10.1% and 4.37–23.21 × 10 9 /L in total individuals, respectively. There was a statistical significance noted between the sexes ( p = .004) for %-IPF, therefore a sex-specific reference interval was established, which was 1.8–10.0% for the males and 1.5–10.1% for females. No significant difference in sex status for A-IPF and age status for both %-IPF and A-IPF was observed. A very poor correlation was estimated between age versus %-IPF, ρ = 0.0156, and age versus A-IPF, ρ = −0.0023, indicating that there is no overall biological relationship between age and these parameters. As expected, a strong correlation between %-IPF and A-IPF was noted which could be attributed to their inter-relatedness. Conclusions: This large-scale study showed comparable reference intervals with the previous studies for %-IPF and A-IPF in a UK population. It found the need to establish sex-specific reference intervals for %-IPF, but not for A-IPF, whereas reference intervals were found to be stable across the age range.