NakedSignal

Change explorer · Haematology and immunology

CD4 count on a new flow cytometry platform vs its predicate (data set two)

Public dataBuilt from a published open-access study.

Flow cytometry platform A (predicate) compared with flow cytometry platform B (new) (data set 2): 1,885 paired results from a published study by Coetzee and Glencross (2017), re-analysed by NakedSignal as if one laboratory had switched from the first system to the second. At 100, 200, 350, 500 cells/µL, 535 results fall in a different category on the second system than on the first, against about 238 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.

Haematology and immunology

CD4 absolute count, cells/µL

Flow cytometry platform A (predicate) compared with Flow cytometry platform B (new) (data set 2). 1,885 paired results.

Compare it with the other comparisons in the explorer

Comparison line

The new system reads 14.3% lower than the old system on average. The comparison line (Passing-Bablok) has a slope of 0.867 (95% interval 0.857 to 0.878) and an intercept of -1.2.

Public data
Comparison line, CD4 absolute count (cells/µL)Comparison line with slope 0.867 (95% interval 0.857 to 0.878) and intercept -1.2, drawn against the line of no change. Decision limits drawn at 100, 200, 350, 500 cells/µL. Where the comparison line sits above the line of no change, the new system reads higher; below, lower.200400600200400600100200350500No changeComparison lineOld system, cells/µLNew system, cells/µL

Fig. 1. The comparison line against the line of no change, over the range of the decision limits (100, 200, 350, 500 cells/µL). 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, 200, 350, 500 cells/µL)

Crossed between the two systems: 535

Expected from repeat testing alone: about 238

Grade and warnings

  • Re-test band: full (at least the protocol minimum of pairs).
  • Band half-width around each limit: 5.51%.
  • Results re-tested on data the band was not fitted to, median: 15%.
  • Share of the excess crossings caught on unseen data, comparison line and band together: 66%; comparison line alone: 46%. The excess is the crossings above what repeat testing alone would cause, so the share can exceed 100% or fall below zero.
  • Repeat-test imprecision: default value.

Source

Coetzee LM, Glencross DK (2017). PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187456 (opens in a new tab); PMC5669480 (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 CD4 absolute count, Flow cytometry platform A (predicate) to Flow cytometry platform B (new)
FieldValue
Paired results used1,885
Comparison line slope0.866667
Slope, 95% interval0.857137 to 0.878224
Comparison line intercept-1.2
Mean difference, new minus old, as % of old-14.284
Decision limits (cells/µL)100, 200, 350, 500
Crossed between the two systems535
Expected from repeat testing alone238.49
Band half-width (%)5.51
Re-tested, unseen data, median (%)15.02
Re-tested, unseen data, range (%)14.75 to 15.28
Excess caught, line and band (%)66.1
Excess caught, line alone (%)45.87

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