Backround: Hematology departments of health laboratories, over capital city and 21 provinces both of governmental and private sectors in this country, have to take responsibilities for providing hematology analysis. A wide range of technology and methods have been implemented among these laboratories. Harmonization of the hematology investigations of different laboratories with standard service all over the country is the major goal to reach. We organized the MEQAS (Mongolian External Quality Assessment Scheme) since 2008 on basis the Cooperation agreement between Ministry of Health and Sysmex Corporation in the establishment of Hematology external quality control and reference laboratory system in Mongolia. This is the report of our 8-year experience of MEQAS as the national project, covering increasing numbers of laboratory members. In 2008-2017 years we set up total 18 MEQAS in Mongolia. Materials and Methods:
Survey Materials
In each survey, the following three different of survey materials were used;
Sample A : Hematology Control Material 1*
Sample B : Hematology Control Material 2*
Sample C : Fresh Whole Blood Sample**
*Hematology Control Material provided by Sysmex Corporation
**Under cooperation of National Center for Transfusiology, a fresh whole blood sample was drawn from a healthy donor and prepared on the same day of sample delivery, according to the procedures reported by Kondo H et. all.
Standard Analyzers
3 units of fully-automated standard analyzers (KX-21, pocH-100i, XS-1000i), installed at the Shastin Central Hospital, were used to assign the target values for the survey materials. These standard analyzers have been calibrated with SCS-1000® before the survey, and monitored with hematology controls, e-CHECK(XS) ® and EIGHTCHECK-3WP® on daily basis.
Instructions & Sample Distribution
On every survey, the workshop was held to give guidance and distribute the survey samples to each participant.
Categorization of Peer Group
Participating data were divided into two peer groups, based on methodology; Group 1: laboratories used automated hematology analyzer (in further Auto’s), Group 2: manually examined group. Each laboratory was given ID number and was asked to analyze these samples 3 times and report the all data and average for CBC 8 parameters.
Statistical Evaluation Method
For individual reports, the results for each participant were evaluated and expressed according to peer group mean and standard deviation index (SDI), Precision index (PI), Absolute evaluation, Scoring system and Target-value evaluation methods (A B C D evaluation). Results:
The Auto’s inter-lab CV% of WBC for fresh whole blood showed decrease from 6.1 to 4.2 comparing with17^th and 18th MEQAS.
The Auto’s Inter-lab CV% of RBC for fresh whole blood showed decrease from 3.7 to 3.4 comparing with 17^th and 18^th MEQAS.
The Auto’s inter-lab CV% of HGB for fresh whole blood were very stable (2.9%, 3.0%), respectively from 17^th to 18^th MEQAS.
The Auto’s inter-lab CV% HCT for the fresh whole blood showed go down from 5.5% to 4.8% comparing with 17^th and 18^th MEQAS.
The Auto’s inter-lab CV% PLT for fresh blood showed go down from 10.2% to 8.2% comparing with 17^th and 18^th MEQAS.
The Auto’s inter-lab CV% of CBC parameter for fresh blood and control Material (Sample A) showed go down from 1^st to 18^th MEQAS.
The Auto’s inter-lab CV% of WBC, RBC, HGB, PLT for Control Material (Sample A) were big difference comparing with Japan’s CV%. Conclusion:
1. The Auto’s inter-lab CV% of WBC, RBC and PLT for fresh whole blood has been decrease respectively 4.2%, 3.4%, 8.2% in the 18^th MEQAS and there was difference in the CV% between manufacturers.
2. The Auto’s inter-lab CV% of WBC, RBC, HGB, PLT for Control Material (Sample A) showed go down from 1^st to 18^th MEQAS but were big difference comparing with Japan’s CV%. Acknowledgements We would like to express our appreciation to the Sysmex Corporation (Japan) for providing financial supports investigate this study.

Introduction: Determining stages of liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease is essential for clinical practice such as decision making on medical treatment, setting the interval of follow-up examination for its complication, screening intervals for hepatocellular carcinoma. Goal: We compared non-invasive fibrosis markers among the patients with chronic hepatitis Delta. Materials and Methods: Totally 70 patients with chronic hepatitis D enrolled into this study. The blood samples were examined for complete blood count, liver function test and serum M2BPGi level. Non-invasive markers such as AAR, APRI, Fib-4 scores were calculated. Those with AAR >1, APRI >0.7, FIB-4 >1.45 were considered with advanced fibrosis. All patients underwent liver stiffness measurement using FibroScan M2 probe. The cutoff values of FibroScan for advanced fibrosis were 9 kPa for patient with normal transaminase level and 11 kPa for patients with elevated transaminase. Results: Advanced fibrosis was observed in 25.7%, 38.6% and 38.6% by AAR, APRI and Fib-4 score, respectively. When cut-off levels of serum M2BPGi for advanced fibrosis was 2.2 COI, 35.7% had advanced fibrosis. FibroScan tests showed 34.4% had advanced fibrosis. The AUROC of M2BPGi were 0.894 and 0.827 for predicting advanced fibrosis and liver cirrhosis. Conclusion Serum M2BPGi and FibroScan would be reliable diagnostic tool for identifying liver fibrosis in Mongolian patients with chronic hepatitis D.