CONVENTIONAL ESR V/S AUTOMATED TEST 1(ALIFAX) ESR: A COMPARATIVE STUDY AT TERTIARY CARE CENTER

NILAM CHARANIYA; GUNJA DWIVEDI; RAVI KUMAR SHARMA; MINAL JAIN

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2025v18i4.53935

Authors

NILAM CHARANIYA Department of Pathology, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6952-9312
GUNJA DWIVEDI Department of Pathology, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2306-6148
RAVI KUMAR SHARMA Department of Psychiatry, American International Institute of Medical Sciences, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
MINAL JAIN Department of Pathology, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3735-0365

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2025v18i4.53935

Keywords:

ESR, Automation, Westergren Method

Abstract

Objective: The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is a key test for detecting inflammation, typically measured using the manual Westergren method. Implementing automated systems like Test 1 (ALIFAX) offers advantages like quicker results and improved precision. This study compares the accuracy of the conventional Westergren method with the automated Test 1 (ALIFAX) system.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at RNT Medical College, Udaipur, using 100 blood samples. ESR was measured by both the manual Westergren method and the automated Test 1 analyzer, which utilizes capillary photometry. The correlation between the two methods was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Results: The mean ESR values for females were 41.88 mm/h (automated) versus 44.31 mm/h (manual), and for males, 32.16 mm/h (automated) versus 35.18 mm/h (manual). The Pearson’s correlation coefficient was 0.94, indicating a strong positive correlation. Differences between the methods were minimal for ESR values <60 mm/h but larger for values >60 mm/h.

Conclusion: The automated Test 1 analyzer showed strong agreement with the Westergren method, suggesting it is a reliable and efficient alternative for ESR measurement in clinical practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

International Council for Standardization in Hematology. ICSH recommendations for measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate. International Council for Standardization in Haematology (Expert Panel on Blood Rheology). J Clin Pathol. 1993;46(3):198-203. doi: 10.1136/jcp.46.3.198, PMID 8463411

Osei-Bimpong A, Meek JH, Lewis SM. ESR or CRP? A comparison of their clinical utility. Hematology. 2007;12(4):353-7. doi: 10.1080/10245330701340734, PMID 17654065

Wu LA, Tan SL, Wright RS, Kopecky SL, Burritt MF, Santrach PJ, et al. Prognostic value of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate in patients with unstable angina. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126(7):772. doi: 10.5858/2002-126-0772-PVOTES, PMID 12125644

Arikan S, Akalin N. Comparison of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate measured by the micro test 1 sedimentation analyzer and the conventional Westergren method. Ann Saudi Med. 2007;27(5):362-5. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2007.362, PMID 17921682

National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference and Selected Procedures for the Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) test (H2-A4). Wayne, PA: NCCLS; 2000.

Jou JM, Lewis SM, Briggs C, Lee SH, De La Salle B, McFadden S, et al. ICSH review of the measurement of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Int J Lab Hematol. 2011;33(2):125-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1751- 553X.2011.01302.x, PMID 21352508

Kratz A, Plebani M, Peng M, Lee YK, McCafferty R, Machin SJ, et al. ICSH recommendations for modified and alternate methods measuring the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Int J Lab Hematol. 2017;39(5):448- 57. doi: 10.1111/ijlh.12693, PMID 28497537

Osei-Bimpong A, Burthem J. Supplementary Techniques Including Blood Parasite Diagnosis. In: Dacie and Lewis Practical Hematology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2012. p. 101-21.

Lapić I, Piva E, Spolaore F, Tosato F, Pelloso M, Plebani M. Automated measurement of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate: Method validation and comparison. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019;57(9):1364-73. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2019-0204, PMID 30939112

Subramanian A, Rangarajan K, Pandey RM, Gandhi JS, Sharma V, Bhoi SK. Evaluation of an automated erythrocyte sedimentation rate analyzer as compared to the Westergren manual method in measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2011;54(1):70-4. doi: 10.4103/0377-4929.77328, PMID 21393881

Kaur M, Mittal A, Puri A. Conventional ESR V/S automated VES MATIC 20/20 plus new ESR- A comparative study of 100 cases. Ann Int Med Dent Res. 2018;4(2):PT34-6.

Mushtaq H, Mehmood T, Khan I, Razvi N. Correlation between automated and the westergren method for determination. J Bahria Univ Med Dent Coll. 2019;9(2):109-12. doi: 10.51985/JBUMDC2018101

Kahar MA. Comparison of alternate erythrocyte sedimentation rate measurement by automated Celltac α+(MEK 1305) and reference Westergren method. J Hematol Allied Sci. 2022;2(2):39-45. doi: 10.25259/JHAS_12_2022

Cennamo M, Giuliano L, Arrigoni G, Fardone V, Russo R, De Tomasi LM, et al. Method comparison of erythrocyte sedimentation rate automated systems, the VES-MATIC 5 (DIESSE) and test 1 (ALIFAX), with the reference method in routine practice. J Clin Med. 2024;13(3):847. doi: 10.3390/jcm13030847, PMID 38337540