ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2021
Evaluation of automated hematology analyzer DYMIND DH76 compared to SYSMEX XN 1000 system.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance evaluation of the new Dymind automated hematology analyzer.Practical laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnostic role of the neutrophil‑to‑lymphocyte ratio and the platelet‑to‑lymphocyte ratio in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Analytical verification of the Dymind D7-CRP automated analyser.Biochemia medica · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDYMIND DH76 (DYMIND BIOTECH, China) is a new automated hematology system designed to provide CBC count, including a 5-part WBC differential count, and its analytical performance should be assessed before adoption for clinical use.
methodsThe analyzer was evaluated according to the International Council for Standardization in Haematology guideline. The purposes of this study were to assess its analytical performance in comparison to SYSMEX XN 1000 hematology analyzer currently used in our laboratory, as well as to compare the automated and manual WBC differential.
resultsWithin-run precision in all concentration ranges was very good with coefficients of variation (CVs) between 0.02% and 2.5% except for platelets over 500×109/L (CV 9.5%). Within-batch imprecision showed CVs lower the declared deviation ranges. Accuracy (defined as trueness) was excellent for all CBC and white cell differential parameters, compared with the state of the art%. Linearity was confirmed with excellent regression coefficients (0.999-1.000), even in the lowest values, and carryover was ≤ 1%. Comparison between DYMIND DH76 and SYSMEX XN 1000 was also very good with correlation coefficients (R2) for WBC (1.000), RBC (0.999), hemoglobin (0.999) and PLT over 50×10
conclusionsWith excellent analytical performance and acceptable comparative analysis, DYMIND DH76 hematology analyser covered the predefined international standards and requirements and is fully appropriate for clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.