Objective: If a new analyzer in the laboratories is considered to be used, method comparison should be done. Two analyzers should be compared in order to evaluate accuracy of the new analyzer. In our study, we aimed to compare the performance of new coagulation analyzer with the one in our laboratory.

Materials and Methods: For method comparison; samples from 78 subjects admitted to our emergency laboratory, were collected and prothrombin time (PT), international normalised ratio (INR), partial thromboplastin time (PTT) tests were analyzed in Sysmex CA-500 and MTX II Coag-A-Mate analyzers. We used MedCalc and Excel programs to evaluate the results by the way of regression analysis and Bland-Altman graphics.

Results: As a result of linear regression analysis we obtained PT r=0.961, INR r=0.965 and APTT r=0.854. r values were smaller than 0.975, so we applied Passing-Bablok regression analysis and found systematic and random errors between analyzers. We observed systematic errors in Bland- Altman graphics for three of the tests. In our study MTX II Coag-A-Mate analyzer gave higher PTZ and APTT results; lower INR results than Sysmex CA-500.

Conclusion: Although there were systematic and random errors between results, the new analyzer was acceptable because bias was smaller than CLIA total allowable error.