Comparison of five automated urine sediment analyzers with manual microscopy for accurate identification of urine sediment
-
Jooyoung Cho
,
Kyeong Jin Oh
und
Jeong-Ho Kim
Abstract
Background
While the introduction of automated urine analyzers is expected to reduce the labor involved, turnaround time and potential assay variations, microscopic examination remains the “gold standard” for the analysis of urine sediments. In this study, we evaluated the analytical and diagnostic performance of five recently introduced automated urine sediment analyzers.
Methods
A total of 1016 samples were examined using five automated urine sediment analyzers and manual microscopy. Concordance of results from each automated analyzer and manual microscopy were evaluated. In addition, image and microscopic review rates of each system were investigated.
Results
The proportional bias for red blood cells (RBCs), white blood cells (WBCs) and squamous epithelial cells in the automated urine sediment analyzers were within ±20% of values obtained using the manual microscope, except in the cases of RBCs and WBCs analyzed using URiSCAN PlusScope and Iris iQ200SPRINT, respectively. The sensitivities of Roche Cobas® u 701 and Siemens UAS800 for pathologic casts (73.6% and 81.1%, respectively) and crystals (62.2% and 49.5%, respectively) were high, along with high image review rates (24.6% and 25.2%, respectively). The detection rates for crystals, casts and review rates can be changed for the Sysmex UF-5000 platform according to cut-off thresholds.
Conclusions
Each automated urine sediment analyzer has certain distinct features, in addition to the common advantages of reducing the burden of manual processing. Therefore, laboratory physicians are encouraged to understand these features, and to utilize each system in appropriate ways, considering clinical algorithms and laboratory workflow.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and have approved its submission.
Research funding: This work was supported by five companies – Sysmex Corporation (Kobe, Japan), Roche Diagnostics International (Rotkreuz, Switzerland), Siemens Healthineers (Erlangen, Germany), Beckman Coulter (Brea, CA, USA), and YD diagnostics (Yongin, Korea).
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organizations played no role in designing the study, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the findings for publication.
References
1. Carlson DA, Statland BE. Automated urinalysis. Clin Lab Med 1988;8:449–61.10.1016/S0272-2712(18)30667-XSuche in Google Scholar
2. Riley RS, McPherson RA. Basic examination of urine. In: McPherson RA, Pincus MR, editors. Henry’s clinical diagnosis and management by laboratory methods. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders, 2017:442–80.Suche in Google Scholar
3. Lee W, Ha JS, Ryoo NH. Comparison of the automated cobas u 701 urine microscopy and UF-1000i flow cytometry systems and manual microscopy in the examination of urine sediments. J Clin Lab Anal 2016;30:663–71.10.1002/jcla.21919Suche in Google Scholar
4. Cho E-J, Ko D-H, Lee W, Chun S, Lee HK, Min W-K. The efficient workflow to decrease the manual microscopic examination of urine sediment using on-screen review of images. Clin Biochem 2018;56:70–4.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.04.008Suche in Google Scholar
5. Haber MH, Blomberg D, Galagan KA, Glassy EF, Ward PC. Color atlas of the urinary sediment: an illustrated field guide based on proficiency testing. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists, 2010.Suche in Google Scholar
6. Ben-Ezra J, Bork L, McPherson RA. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-100 automated urinalysis analyzer. Clin Chem 1998;44:92–5.10.1093/clinchem/44.1.92Suche in Google Scholar
7. Altekin E, Kadicesme O, Akan P, Kume T, Vupa O, Ergor G, et al. New generation IQ-200 automated urine microscopy analyzer compared with KOVA cell chamber. J Clin Lab Anal 2010;24:67–71.10.1002/jcla.20319Suche in Google Scholar
8. Lamchiagdhase P, Preechaborisutkul K, Lomsomboon P, Srisuchart P, Tantiniti P, Khan-u-Ra N, et al. Urine sediment examination: a comparison between the manual method and the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Clin Chim Acta 2005;358:167–74.10.1016/j.cccn.2005.02.021Suche in Google Scholar
9. Chien TI, Kao JT, Liu HL, Lin PC, Hong JS, Hsieh HP, et al. Urine sediment examination: a comparison of automated urinalysis systems and manual microscopy. Clin Chim Acta 2007;384:28–34.10.1016/j.cca.2007.05.012Suche in Google Scholar
10. Delanghe JR, Kouri TT, Huber AR, Hannemann-Pohl K, Guder WG, Lun A, et al. The role of automated urine particle flow cytometry in clinical practice. Clin Chim Acta 2000;301:1–18.10.1016/S0009-8981(00)00342-9Suche in Google Scholar
11. Zaman Z, Fogazzi GB, Garigali G, Croci MD, Bayer G, Kranicz T. Urine sediment analysis: analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX – a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:147–54.10.1016/j.cca.2009.10.018Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Wah DT, Wises PK, Butch AW. Analytic performance of the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer and comparison with manual counts using Fuchs-Rosenthal cell chambers. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:290–6.10.1309/VNGU9Q5V932D74NUSuche in Google Scholar
13. Chien TI, Lu JY, Kao JT, Lee TF, Ho SY, Chang CY, et al. Comparison of three automated urinalysis systems – Bayer Clinitek Atlas, Roche Urisys 2400 and Arkray Aution Max for testing urine chemistry and detection of bacteriuria. Clin Chim Acta 2007;377:98–102.10.1016/j.cca.2006.08.033Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Hannemann-Pohl K, Kampf SC. Automation of urine sediment examination: a comparison of the Sysmex UF-100 automated flow cytometer with routine manual diagnosis (microscopy, test strips, and bacterial culture). Clin Chem Lab Med 1999;37:753–64.10.1515/CCLM.1999.116Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Wesarachkitti B, Khejonnit V, Pratumvinit B, Reesukumal K, Meepanya S, Pattanavin C, et al. Performance evaluation and comparison of the fully automated urinalysis analyzers UX-2000 and Cobas 6500. Lab Med 2016;47:124–33.10.1093/labmed/lmw002Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Ko DH, Ji M, Kim S, Cho EJ, Lee W, Yun YM, et al. An approach to standardization of urine sediment analysis via suggestion of a common manual protocol. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2016;76:256–63.10.3109/00365513.2016.1144141Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Jiang T, Chen P, Ouyang J, Zhang S, Cai D. Urine particles analysis: performance evaluation of Sysmex UF-1000i and comparison among urine flow cytometer, dipstick, and visual microscopic examination. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2011;71:30–7.10.3109/00365513.2010.535011Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Delanghe J, Speeckaert M. Preanalytical requirements of urinalysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014;24:89–104.10.11613/BM.2014.011Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
19. Langlois MR, Delanghe JR, Steyaert SR, Everaert KC, De Buyzere ML. Automated flow cytometry compared with an automated dipstick reader for urinalysis. Clin Chem 1999;45:118–22.10.1093/clinchem/45.1.118Suche in Google Scholar
20. Bakan E, Ozturk N, Baygutalp NK, Polat E, Akpinar K, Dorman E, et al. Comparison of Cobas 6500 and Iris IQ200 fully-automated urine analyzers to manual urine microscopy. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2016;26:365–75.10.11613/BM.2016.040Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
21. Previtali G, Ravasio R, Seghezzi M, Buoro S, Alessio MG. Performance evaluation of the new fully automated urine particle analyser UF-5000 compared to the reference method of the Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber. Clin Chim Acta 2017;472:123–30.10.1016/j.cca.2017.07.028Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Lewis MA, editor. CLSI Document GP16-A3. Urinalysis; approved guideline, 3rd ed. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Institute (CLSI), 2009.Suche in Google Scholar
23. Ottiger C, Huber AR. Quantitative urine particle analysis: integrative approach for the optimal combination of automation with UF-100 and microscopic review with KOVA cell chamber. Clin Chem 2003;49:617–23.10.1373/49.4.617Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
24. KOVA International. KOVA® GLASSTIC® SLIDE 10 WITH GRIDS – Instructions for use. https://www.kovaintl.com/downloads/DI-91064-17-final.pdf. Accessed: 19 Dec 2018.Suche in Google Scholar
25. Wang J, Zhang Y, Xu D, Shao W, Lu Y. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-1000i for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;133:577–82.10.1309/AJCP1GT2JXOCQBCZSuche in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Budak YU, Huysal K. Comparison of three automated systems for urine chemistry and sediment analysis in routine laboratory practice. Clin Lab 2011;57:47–52.Suche in Google Scholar
27. Ince FD, Ellidag HY, Koseoglu M, Simsek N, Yalcin H, Zengin MO. The comparison of automated urine analyzers with manual microscopic examination for urinalysis automated urine analyzers and manual urinalysis. Pract Lab Med 2016;5:14–20.10.1016/j.plabm.2016.03.002Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0211).
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Identification and management of spurious hemolysis: controversies, concerns and criticisms
- Reviews
- CYP24A1 and SLC34A1 genetic defects associated with idiopathic infantile hypercalcemia: from genotype to phenotype
- Meta-analysis: compared with anti-CCP and rheumatoid factor, could anti-MCV be the next biomarker in the rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria?
- Opinion Paper
- Collection, transport and storage procedures for blood culture specimens in adult patients: recommendations from a board of Italian experts
- General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
- Using the hemoglobin-binding Staphylococcus aureus protein IsdH to enable plasma analysis of hemolyzed blood samples
- Handling of hemolyzed serum samples in clinical chemistry laboratories: the Nordic hemolysis project
- Clinical biomarker innovation: when is it worthwhile?
- Impact of total automation consolidating first-line laboratory tests on diagnostic blood loss
- Diagnostic and prognostic value of the D-dimer test in emergency department patients: secondary analysis of an observational study
- Screening of chemical libraries in pursuit of kallikrein-5 specific inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory dermatoses
- Comparison of five automated urine sediment analyzers with manual microscopy for accurate identification of urine sediment
- Establishment of an international autoantibody reference standard for human anti-DFS70 antibodies: proof-of-concept study for a novel Megapool strategy by pooling individual specific sera
- Only monospecific anti-DFS70 antibodies aid in the exclusion of antinuclear antibody associated rheumatic diseases: an Italian experience
- Performance evaluation of an Indoxyl Sulfate Assay Kit “NIPRO”
- Variable and inaccurate serum IgG4 levels resulting from lack of standardization in IgG subclass assay calibration
- Hematology and Coagulation
- Influence of hypertriglyceridemia, hyperbilirubinemia and hemolysis on thrombin generation in human plasma
- Reference Values and Biological Variations
- Reference intervals for serum total vitamin B12 and holotranscobalamin concentrations and their change points with methylmalonic acid concentration to assess vitamin B12 status during early and mid-pregnancy
- Cardiovascular Diseases
- Serum concentrations of free fatty acids are associated with 3-month mortality in acute heart failure patients
- Letters to the Editor
- Management of potassium results in haemolysed plasma samples at the emergency department laboratory
- Unexpected analytical interference in isavuconazole UV determination in a child in therapy with lumacaftor/ivacaftor for cystic fibrosis
- Total laboratory automation has the potential to be the field of application of artificial intelligence: the cyber-physical system and “Automation 4.0”
- 99th percentile upper reference limit of AccuTnI+3 in a Korean reference population: a multicenter study using fresh serum
- Roche Troponin T hs-STAT meets all expert opinion analytical laboratory practice recommendations for the use of the differential diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome
- A comparison of biotin interference in routine immunoassays on the Roche Cobas 8000, Beckman Coulter DXi and Siemens Advia Centaur XPT immunoassay platforms
- The importance of the methodology and sample matrix when interpreting chromogranin A results
- The sudden death of the combined first trimester aneuploidy screening, a single centre experience in Belgium
- Reply to Luksic et al. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56(4):574–581
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Identification and management of spurious hemolysis: controversies, concerns and criticisms
- Reviews
- CYP24A1 and SLC34A1 genetic defects associated with idiopathic infantile hypercalcemia: from genotype to phenotype
- Meta-analysis: compared with anti-CCP and rheumatoid factor, could anti-MCV be the next biomarker in the rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria?
- Opinion Paper
- Collection, transport and storage procedures for blood culture specimens in adult patients: recommendations from a board of Italian experts
- General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
- Using the hemoglobin-binding Staphylococcus aureus protein IsdH to enable plasma analysis of hemolyzed blood samples
- Handling of hemolyzed serum samples in clinical chemistry laboratories: the Nordic hemolysis project
- Clinical biomarker innovation: when is it worthwhile?
- Impact of total automation consolidating first-line laboratory tests on diagnostic blood loss
- Diagnostic and prognostic value of the D-dimer test in emergency department patients: secondary analysis of an observational study
- Screening of chemical libraries in pursuit of kallikrein-5 specific inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory dermatoses
- Comparison of five automated urine sediment analyzers with manual microscopy for accurate identification of urine sediment
- Establishment of an international autoantibody reference standard for human anti-DFS70 antibodies: proof-of-concept study for a novel Megapool strategy by pooling individual specific sera
- Only monospecific anti-DFS70 antibodies aid in the exclusion of antinuclear antibody associated rheumatic diseases: an Italian experience
- Performance evaluation of an Indoxyl Sulfate Assay Kit “NIPRO”
- Variable and inaccurate serum IgG4 levels resulting from lack of standardization in IgG subclass assay calibration
- Hematology and Coagulation
- Influence of hypertriglyceridemia, hyperbilirubinemia and hemolysis on thrombin generation in human plasma
- Reference Values and Biological Variations
- Reference intervals for serum total vitamin B12 and holotranscobalamin concentrations and their change points with methylmalonic acid concentration to assess vitamin B12 status during early and mid-pregnancy
- Cardiovascular Diseases
- Serum concentrations of free fatty acids are associated with 3-month mortality in acute heart failure patients
- Letters to the Editor
- Management of potassium results in haemolysed plasma samples at the emergency department laboratory
- Unexpected analytical interference in isavuconazole UV determination in a child in therapy with lumacaftor/ivacaftor for cystic fibrosis
- Total laboratory automation has the potential to be the field of application of artificial intelligence: the cyber-physical system and “Automation 4.0”
- 99th percentile upper reference limit of AccuTnI+3 in a Korean reference population: a multicenter study using fresh serum
- Roche Troponin T hs-STAT meets all expert opinion analytical laboratory practice recommendations for the use of the differential diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome
- A comparison of biotin interference in routine immunoassays on the Roche Cobas 8000, Beckman Coulter DXi and Siemens Advia Centaur XPT immunoassay platforms
- The importance of the methodology and sample matrix when interpreting chromogranin A results
- The sudden death of the combined first trimester aneuploidy screening, a single centre experience in Belgium
- Reply to Luksic et al. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56(4):574–581
