Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 46: 105-111, 2000;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hendriks, H. A.
Right arrow Articles by Verweij, W. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hendriks, H. A.
Right arrow Articles by Verweij, W. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow Automation and Analytical Techniques
(Clinical Chemistry. 2000;46:105-111.)
© 2000 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Articles

Standardized Comparison of Processing Capacity and Efficiency of Five New-Generation Immunoassay Analyzers

Henriëtte Alice Hendriks1,a, Wouter Kortlandt2 and Willem Marius Verweij1

1 Stichting Artsen Laboratorium, Noorderstraat 8, 3512 VX Utrecht, The Netherlands.

2 Diakonessenhuis, Bosboomstraat 1, 3582 KE Utrecht, The Netherlands.
a Author for correspondence. Fax 31-30-2361172; e-mail S.A.L.Utrecht{at}inter.nl.net

Background: With the trend toward laboratory and workstation consolidation, more studies are necessary to evaluate instrumentation, solutions for coping with workflow and test diversity, and opportunities for increasing the overall efficiency of laboratory testing. We assessed the processing capacity and efficiency of new-generation immunoassay analyzers by determining productivity parameters of five commercially available systems.

Methods: A workload protocol was developed and used to assess processing capacity and efficiency parameters of five immunoassay analyzers under standardized conditions in a real-life routine situation. We studied the ACS:Centaur® (analyzer A), ArchitectTM i2000 (analyzer B), Elecsys® 2010 tandem (analyzer C), Immulite® 2000 (analyzer D), and Vitros ECi (analyzer E) on the basis of a standardized workload protocol that reflected a routine laboratory situation. This workload encompassed reflex and STAT testing, dilutions, and in-run calibration of a new reagent lot number. The analyzers were compared for hands-on labor time, unattended time (UT), throughput, and differentiated relative productivity indexes [RPI(UT); number of reportable results/(processing time - sum of unattended time)]. The RPI data for analyzers linked to an automated (aut) sample-handling system [RPI(aut)] were also calculated.

Results: The evaluation produced a set of parameters for the productivity of the instruments. An overview of the most important parameters revealed the following: the throughput was 193, 123, 97, 109, and 46 tests/hour for instruments A, B, C, D and E, respectively; the RPI(10) was 425, 238, 161, 445, and 151 tests/operator-hour; the RPI(30) was 229, 136, 118, 264, and 86 tests/operator-hour; the RPI(10,aut) was 1701, 637, 235, 964, and 223 tests/operator-hour; and the RPI(30,aut) was 298, 150, 174, 400, and 114 tests/operator-hour.

Conclusions: The combination of a standardized workload protocol and determination of parameters for productivity and labor efficiency, especially the differentiated RPIs, made it possible to make an objective comparison of the organizational consequences of the use of these instruments. The described parameters allow for a scientifically based choice, given a certain workflow and a particular laboratory organization.




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
F. A. Quinn, M. Mittino, F. Rode, H. A. Hendriks, and W. M. Verweij
Capacity and Efficiency Testing of New Immunoassay Analyzers Drs. Hendriks and Verweij respond:
Clin. Chem., July 1, 2000; 46(7): 1017 - 1019.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.