Hallo!

I have worked with both the original Ektachem and later Vitros as well with wet-chemistry analysers, such as the Hitachis, later Modulars from Roche, the Advias from Siemens.

The Vitros is a very good analyzer, very useful in an "acute laboratory", where fast and valid results are necessary and where you don't need frequent calibrations. The Vitros has however two disadvantages: the test strips are rather expensive (50 cents for a creatinine in contrast to 2 cents on an Advia) and you can't adapt a test to a modified method. In our laboratory, we used the Vitros in an acute laboratory close to an Critical care unit with single samples and the Advia or Modular for the routine samples with long series.

Sighart Walter Golf

Thanks.

actually i have worked on COBAS Wet chemistry analyzer...and now we have Vitros 250 dry chemistry analyzer... I feel that the user interface is more user friendly in case of COBAS. But turn around time is less in dry chemistry and validity and repeatability of the result is also good.

Using dry chemistry for emergencies and wet chemistry for the routine, perhaps there are problems of comparability of results in the same patient for some analytes. However, these problems are not very relevant

Hallo!

As I described earlier, we used a Vitros 250 in the acute laboratory and at first two Hitachis and later 2 Advias in the routine laboratory. We carried out once per week test comparisons between all acute laboratory papameters and the corresponding routine lab Parameters calculated the method comaparisons between the laboratories using the Passing-Bablock-method. When slope and/or intercept differed significantly, the attending physician had to decide, which channel was OK and then the other channel was closed until the problem was solved.

Sighart Golf

Sorry. I forget to write before "in  the same patient for some analytes": OCCASIONALLY.

For the rest, I totally agree with Sighart