Posted by a Lab Director and Diagnostics Consultant
The biggest fear when switching brands: “Will results be consistent with our referral labs and reference ranges?” We ran a comprehensive correlation study between Runmei and the three most common hematology platforms in our region. The results: r ≥ 0.94 across all parameters.
Study design: fresh EDTA samples from 240 patients (n=240, covering normal and abnormal ranges) analyzed on Runmei, Brand A (most common in our region), Brand B (used by our main referral lab), and Brand C (used by our pediatric hospital partner).
Results: Hemoglobin r=0.99 (all brands), WBC r=0.97-0.99, PLT r=0.94-0.98, MCV r=0.96-0.98, Neutrophils r=0.95-0.98.
The lowest correlation was monocyte count vs Brand C (r=0.88), consistent with known differences in monocyte gating strategies between fluorescence and impedance-based analyzers.
Bland-Altman analysis showed mean biases within ±3% for all CBC parameters. The one exception: PLT at low counts (< 50×10³/μL) where Runmei’s fluorescence method showed a +4.8% bias vs Brand A’s impedance method. As discussed in post 12, the fluorescence method is more accurate at low levels.
We established transferability equations for our main referral lab: Hb seems seamless (no correction needed), WBC & PLT can be reported directly with a comment noting method difference, and Differential parameters require minor comment adjustments but no numerical conversion.
The referring clinicians didn’t notice the analyzer switch. Our continuity of patient data was maintained. That was the ultimate validation.
If you’re considering switching analyzer brands, the correlation study is non-negotiable. Runmei passed ours with flying colors. What would your institution need to see before switching?
