I am curious why there is a need for further in-depth analysis of Sysmex DI-60 if the healthcare workers are accustomed to using the standard method in analyzing Red and White morphology in the laboratories— the manual method.
Manual peripheral blood smear (PBS) review remains the gold standard for complete blood counts (CBCs), white blood cell (WBC) differentials, and red blood cell (RBC) morphology characterization, especially in abnormal sample, but it has a number of disadvantages, including time-consuming and labor-intensive procedures, the need for a skilled technician, and bias of the reviewer. As a result, automated instruments designed for PBS morphological assessment have emerged as a powerful tool for characterizing and quantifying peripheral blood cells in a uniform, rapid, and robust manner. The Sysmex DI-60 is an example of an automated instrument designed for PBS morphological assessment, however, limited research has demonstrated their accuracy and precision when analyzing red and white blood cell morphology, particularly in abnormal samples as compared to manual methods.
With this in mind, conducting a more in-depth analysis of automated machines such as Sysmex DI-60 is essential to be able to study its advantages, disadvantages, and future directions. In-depth analysis of Sysmex DI-6O can help identify any limitations or biases, allowing for improvements or adjustments to be made. Through a more detailed analysis, researchers may discover ways to optimize the performance of the Sysmex DI-60 in terms of its accuracy, precision, and efficiency. If there are discrepancies or unexpected results using the automated machine, it may also help in troubleshooting issues and determine the root cause, whether it’s related to instrumentations, sample preparation, or other factors. In conclusion, an in-depth analysis of Sysmex DI-60 can lead to new insights or discoveries that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field, potentially leading to improvements in methodology or the technology itself.