Conclusion
For most cases, the same decisions can be made with a 3-part system as with a 5-part system. Regardless of analyzer type and often, guidelines often dictate that abnormal sample values must anyway undergo manual examination by microscopy, especially when a sample is flagged by the analyzer as suspicious. The more detailed information provided by the 5-part analyzer, however, can reduce the number of flagged samples that will require microscopic examination.
A 3-part analyzer based on robust impedance technology might require less maintenance than a 5-part instrument, which also includes the more sensitive laser-based measurement technology. A 3-part instrument is therefore often cheaper, but still provides excellent precision for general screenings.
With a 5-part analyzer, accuracy for abnormal samples can be improved. A 5-part analyzer is therefore typically used by hospital laboratories or, for example, by oncology clinics that can justify the higher cost associated with this type of system.
Regardless of the choice of a 3-part or a 5-part instrument, however, of utmost importance is the ability of the analyzer to detect and flag for abnormal samples.
Learn more about Boule’s product offering.