Comparison of LabUMat‐with‐UriSed and iQ®200 fully automatic urine sediment analysers with manual urine analysis

Abstract

Urine analysis is one of the most common tests for assessing urinary-tract and kidney diseases. In recent years there have been new developments in the automation of this test. The objective of the present study was to compare the performances of two urine sediment analysers, namely LabUMat with UriSed (77 Elektronika Kft, Budapest, Hungary) and iQ200 (Iris Diagnostics, Chatsworth, CA, U.S.A.), with the KOVA method for manual urine measurement by evaluating the results in terms of similar parameters (cells or particles per lower-power field or high-power field). The results obtained using the UriSed and iQ200 analysers were more reproducible (7.1-30.2 and 14.9-35.4% respectively) than those obtained using the manual technique (17.9-44.4%). Significant correlations were established among the three techniques in the evaluation of leucocytes, erythrocytes and epithelial cells. Although the UriSed, iQ200 and visual-microscopic measurements were in agreement, confirmation of the results from automated methods by manual urine analyses is significantly useful, especially for pathological cases that were close to the limits of the techniques.

Validation and verification of automated urine particle analysers

“…However, precision with automated analysers was found to be superior to the precision of the manual microscopy method 7 11–13 17–19 30 34 35…”

“…Although details about how the urine samples were obtained and handled were not given in all the publications, many of the studies used urine containers without preservatives,7–10 14 17–20 23 25 29 30 33–35 39 42 44 46 47 49 52 56 58–61 and only few of the studies used containers with preservatives such as boric acid12 40 or a mixture of urine samples with or without preservatives 22 51 53. How quickly the microscopy was performed was reported in some studies in relation to the collection time, and it varied greatly ranging between 1 hour,7 52 2 hours,8 20 32 47 59–61 64 3 hours,63 4 hours,29 46 8 hours,53 10 hours10 and 24 hours 22 25 28 48 51.…”

“…How quickly the microscopy was performed was reported in some studies in relation to the collection time, and it varied greatly ranging between 1 hour,7 52 2 hours,8 20 32 47 59–61 64 3 hours,63 4 hours,29 46 8 hours,53 10 hours10 and 24 hours 22 25 28 48 51. In other studies, the time for completing the microscopy was given in relation to the receipt time in the laboratory, and it ranged between 1 hour,11 18 30 31 33 35 2 hours,12 13 16 19 34 3 hours58 and 4 hours after receipt 21 24 62. In some of the studies, there was only a generic statement that urines had been tested without much delay9 17 27 38 39 50 54 56 65 or no clear statements 14 15 23 26 36 37 40–45 49 55 57…”

“…Some of the studies listed in table 1 included an assessment of precision (repeatability) for various particles such as WBCs and RBCs: precision was usually lower with low particle counts, that is, with values close to the upper limit of the reference range 7 11–13 16–19 20 25 26 28 29 30 32 33–35. However, precision with automated analysers was found to be superior to the precision of the manual microscopy method 7 11–13 17–19 30 34 35…”

UrineCART, a machine learning method for establishment of review rules based on UF-1000i flow cytometry and dipstick or reflectance photometer

“…At present, there are two approaches which can increase productivity which have been widely employed in clinical laboratories. One is based on an image analysis system, such as iQ200 (Iris Diagnostics, USA) (9) , the other is on a UF-1000i fl ow cytometer (Sysmex Corporation, Kobe, Japan). The latter counts white blood cells (WBCs), red blood cells (RBCs), squamous epithelial cells, bacteria, and casts quantitatively in urine on the basis of their light scattering, fl uorescence, and impedance properties.…”