Middle Black Sea Journal of Health Science

Abstract

Objective: The
golden standard for measuring erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is the
Westergren method. Some other methods for measuring ESR have become available
in the recent decades. They differ from
a modest modification of the Westergren method to very different methodologies.
Even though the methodologies of these tests are different the results of them
are assessed as the same test by clinicians. Therefore the bias reasoned by
different methodology has caused misinterpretation of the patients by
clinicians. The comparison and harmonization of this method will provide a
standardization and same interpretation for ESR.

Methods: The golden standard method for
measuring ESR which is called Westergren Method and two prototypes of the
remaining methods were chosen for comparison. Three different group of patients
were were assessed with three different methods in this study.

Results: The monitorization of three
samples were observed for 60 minutes. There was no correlation detected
depending on the time after the monitorization had started. Hence the
adjustment of the results were collected after 20 or 30 minutes for simulating
60 minutes were found significantly different than the classical Westergren
method. The detected bias between the adjustment of the earlier result to one
hour and the classical method is not always different than the classical
method. The sample results were found significantly different in comparison to
two methods for all selected patient groups.

Conclusion: There is no sedimentation algorithm detected in
ESR monitorization process. Therefore the observed bias is thought to be caused
by the adjustment of the earlier results to one hour. The adjusted results of
30 minutes were found to be significantly similar compared to the adjusted
results of 20 minutes. The results of the capillary photometric kinetic method
were found unbiased with the classical Westergren method and compatible with
the clinical observations.