NakedSignal
Write to us

Change explorer · Haematology and immunology

Platelet count between two haematology analysers, fluorescent vs optical

Public dataBuilt from a published open-access study.

Haematology analyser A, fluorescent platelet count compared with haematology analyser B, optical platelet count: 21 paired results from a published study by Xiong et al. (2026), re-analysed by NakedSignal as if one laboratory had switched from the first system to the second. At 100, 150 ×10⁹/L, 8 results fall in a different category on the second system than on the first, against about 0.25 expected from repeat testing alone. That expected count uses a default repeat-test imprecision, the setting our program uses when no precision data are supplied, not one measured in this study, so the two numbers are not a test of whether the switch moves more results than repeat testing would. The 21 samples were selected from patients with pseudothrombocytopenia, so the numbers describe that group, not a general patient population.

Haematology and immunology

Platelet count, ×10⁹/L

Haematology analyser A, fluorescent platelet count compared with Haematology analyser B, optical platelet count. 21 paired results.

Compare it with the other comparisons in the explorer

Comparison line

The new system reads 58.2% higher than the old system on average. The comparison line (Passing-Bablok) has a slope of 0.875 (95% interval 0.548 to 1.532) and an intercept of 52.129.

Public data
Comparison line, platelet count (×10⁹/L)Comparison line with slope 0.875 (95% interval 0.548 to 1.532) and intercept 52.129, drawn against the line of no change. Decision limits drawn at 100, 150 ×10⁹/L. Where the comparison line sits above the line of no change, the new system reads higher; below, lower.5010015020050100150100150No changeComparison lineOld system, ×10⁹/LNew system, ×10⁹/L

Fig. 1. The comparison line against the line of no change, over the range of the decision limits (100, 150 ×10⁹/L). Dots mark where each line meets each limit; the gap between them is the bias at that limit.

Crossing each limit

Results that fall on the other side of a decision limit on the new system than on the old, read as if the new system had replaced the old, against the number repeat testing on one unchanged system would move. The program reports the count across all limits together.

All decision limits together (100, 150 ×10⁹/L)

Crossed between the two systems: 8

Expected from repeat testing alone: about 0.25

Grade and warnings

  • Re-test band not computed: 21 usable pairs, fewer than 40.
  • Repeat-test imprecision: default value.

Source

Xiong L, Pan X, Peng M, Gan T, Deng C, Zha H, Wang Y (2026). Evaluation of pre-dilution combined with optical/fluorescent platelet counting for correcting pseudothrombocytopenia. Front Med (Lausanne). doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1855339 (opens in a new tab); PMC13395694 (opens in a new tab). Licence: CC BY 4.0 (opens in a new tab). Re-analysed by NakedSignal. The deposit names the systems.

Show the numbers
All values for platelet count, Haematology analyser A, fluorescent platelet count to Haematology analyser B, optical platelet count
FieldValue
Paired results used21
Comparison line slope0.874878
Slope, 95% interval0.548347 to 1.532258
Comparison line intercept52.129032
Mean difference, new minus old, as % of old58.163
Decision limits (×10⁹/L)100, 150
Crossed between the two systems8
Expected from repeat testing alone0.25
Band half-width (%)none
Re-tested, unseen data, median (%)none
Re-tested, unseen data, range (%)none
Excess caught, line and band (%)none
Excess caught, line alone (%)none

Related

Other comparisons from the same study:

Guide: Crossings by chance

Every study behind the explorer, with its licence: public data. How the counts are made: how it works.

Changing a system like this one?

Request a first site report