Modernizing a Classic Test: Validation and Clinical Utility of Infrared-Barrier and Near-Infrared Photometry for Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Determination
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37275/bsm.v9i9.1394Keywords:
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Laboratory automation, Method validation, Near-infrared photometry, WestergrenAbstract
Background: The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is a cornerstone laboratory test for monitoring inflammation. The manual Westergren method, while the established gold standard, is slow and hazardous, prompting a shift towards automation. This study provides a rigorous, head-to-head validation of two mechanistically distinct automated technologies—infrared-barrier photometry (IBP) and near-infrared photometry (NIP)—to assess their analytical performance and operational utility in a tertiary care setting.
Methods: A cross-sectional method comparison study was conducted on 59 outpatient samples at Adam Malik General Hospital, Indonesia. Each sample was analyzed for ESR using the manual Westergren method, the Caretium XC-A30 analyzer (IBP), and the Mindray BC-760 hematology analyzer (NIP). Method agreement was assessed using Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Clinical concordance was evaluated using categorized results.
Results: Both automated methods demonstrated excellent agreement with the Westergren reference. Passing-Bablok regression showed no significant proportional or constant bias for either method. The NIP method exhibited a near-perfect regression equation (y = 1.01x - 0.58), while the IBP method also performed well (y = 0.98x + 1.25). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a clinically insignificant mean bias of +0.44 mm/hr for NIP and -4.47 mm/hr for IBP. Clinical concordance was high, with 96.6% of NIP results and 91.5% of IBP results falling within the same clinical category as the Westergren method.
Conclusion: Both automated methods are valid and reliable alternatives to the Westergren method. The NIP technology, in particular, offers a substantial leap in laboratory efficiency by providing results in under two minutes from a standard EDTA sample. Its superior workflow integration and strong analytical performance support its adoption to drastically reduce turnaround times and enhance modern patient care pathways.
Authors
- Ester Maduma Napitupulu1*
- Malayana Rahmita Nasution1
- Ricke Loesnihari1
- 1Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara/Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia
Corresponding author Ester Maduma Napitupulu — estermaduma@gmail.com
Article history
- Submitted
- Accepted
- Published
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright and licensing
Copyright in each article remains with the author(s). Authors grant Bioscientia Medicina: Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research a non-exclusive right of first publication and the right to identify itself as the original publisher. No exclusive transfer of copyright is required.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. Users may copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided appropriate attribution is given, a link to the license is supplied, changes are indicated, and adaptations are distributed under the same license.
The license applies to the article's scholarly content unless a credit line states otherwise. Third-party material may be subject to separate rights. Authors retain patent, trademark, moral, and research-data rights. The copyright year follows the article's publication date.
