Automated Versus Manual Estimation Of Platelet Count

ABSTRACT

Objective:To compare the results of platelet count done by peripheral smear method and by automated cell counter. Material and Methods: This cross sectional study was conducted in the hematology laboratory of police Hospital Jammu, J & K for the period of two months (February to March 2018). 100 random samples were processed by the automated method (Rayto Haemarray 83) and the manual method (leishman's stained thin blood films) simultaneously. Results: 9 The mean platelet count estimated by the manual method was 208.2 ±100.9× 10 /L, while that estimated by the automated method was 9 206.5 ± 106.0 × 10 /L, with no significant statistical difference between both means (p>0.05). The Pearson correlation test showed significant positive correlation between both methods (r 0.904), this correlation remained significant when the samples of normal count by the two methods were correlated (r 0.890), but it was insignificant negative correlation when the samples of low or high counts by the two methods were correlated (r -0.096 and r -0.239) respectively. Conclusion: Platelet estimate is an important step in assessment of platelet count and it should be done for every sample of platelet count, especially when the count is lower or higher than normal by any method.