Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2020
Architect i2000 SR has improved turnaround time for infectious disease serology testing over Vitros ECiQ.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cheng Cindy, Hauser Jocelyn R, Otto Caitlin, Tang Yi-Wei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Vitros ECiQ and Architect i2000 SR are two automated instruments used to detect serology biomarkers of hepatitis A, B and C viruses, and HIV infections. We compared performance of the Architect to the Vitro EciQ after implementation at our institution.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to compare patient samples tested on the Vitros ECiQ or Architect for hepatitis and HIV serological assays. The positivity rate, frequency of equivocal results, turnaround times (TAT), and hands-on time (HOT) were analyzed.
RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the positivity rate between the two instruments, with the exception of two assays. An increase in equivocal results was observed for the Architect (0.2% vs 0.5%). Notably, the TAT for the Architect i2000 was shorter for all except one assay (31.6 vs 33.7 hours) and demonstrated improved workflow.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both instruments performed comparably. Architect had shorter TAT over Vitros.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to compare patient samples tested on the Vitros ECiQ or Architect for hepatitis and HIV serological assays. The positivity rate, frequency of equivocal results, turnaround times (TAT), and hands-on time (HOT) were analyzed.
RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the positivity rate between the two instruments, with the exception of two assays. An increase in equivocal results was observed for the Architect (0.2% vs 0.5%). Notably, the TAT for the Architect i2000 was shorter for all except one assay (31.6 vs 33.7 hours) and demonstrated improved workflow.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both instruments performed comparably. Architect had shorter TAT over Vitros.