ReviewJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2026
Performance Evaluation of Automated Urit 5160 Haematology Analyser at the Bamenda Regional Hospital, Cameroon.
Review in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Urit 5160 is a five-part leucocyte automated haematology analyser routinely used to improve workflow, patient management, and research. It is essential to confirm the instrument's performance by examining objective evidence that the laboratory can achieve the manufacturer-provided performance characteristics. Surprisingly, some analysers are used without evaluation. Our objectives were to evaluate the performance characteristics of Urit 5160 using blank count, precision, carryover, linearity, and method-comparison experiments to improve workflow, patient management, and research. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a cross-sectional prospective study conducted between October 2024 and March 2026 at the Bamenda Regional Hospital Laboratory, Cameroon. The parameters examined included: White Blood Cell Count, Haemoglobin, Red Blood Cell Count, Haematocrit, and Platelet Count. Excellent agreement was considered if the results from various experiments matched the manufacturer-provided specifications. Method comparison was performed by analysing 100 specimens in parallel on Urit 5160 and 3000 plus (reference instrument). Bland-Altman plots and Passing-Bablok regression analysis were used to evaluate the slopes, intercepts, and bias relative to the total allowable error (TEa) limits.
resultsOur results demonstrated acceptable blank count (0.0%), imprecision (%CV ≤ 3.9), carry-over (≤ 0.6%), and linearity (r ≥ 0.999) and the comparison study across all parameters. Bland-Altman analysis and Passing-Bablok regression showed acceptable correlation and minimal bias.
conclusionThe instrument demonstrated acceptable blank count, imprecision, carry-over, linearity, and method comparison within the constraints of the comparator instrument-Urit 3000 plus across all parameters. Thus, laboratories should ensure that manufacturer-provided characteristics are verified before instruments are routinely used.
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.