Comparison of three automated urinalysis systems—Bayer Clinitek Atlas, Roche Urisys 2400 and Arkray Aution Max for testing urine chemistry and detection of bacteriuria

Chien, Tzu-I; Lü, Jinying; Kao, Jau-Tsuen; Lee, Tai-Fen; Ho, Shu-Yuan; Chang, Cheng-Jong; Liu, Chaowei; Lee, Chun-Hsien; Yan, Shiao-Ni; Yang, Jui-Yi; Lin, Po-Chuang; Wang, Mei-Ju

doi:10.1016/j.cca.2006.08.033

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[14][15][16][17] Various studies have been performed on the performance of (now outdated) POCT urine analysers compared with laboratory reference method, [18][19][20][21] but none of them were tested in general practice, and none of them compared automated urinalysis with the routine method of visual reading.…”

Section: Comparison With Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective, observational study comparing automated and visual point-of-care urinalysis in general practice

Delft¹,

Goedhart²,

Spigt

et al. 2016

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivePoint-of-care testing (POCT) urinalysis might reduce errors in (subjective) reading, registration and communication of test results, and might also improve diagnostic outcome and optimise patient management. Evidence is lacking. In the present study, we have studied the analytical performance of automated urinalysis and visual urinalysis compared with a reference standard in routine general practice.SettingThe study was performed in six general practitioner (GP) group practices in the Netherlands. Automated urinalysis was compared with visual urinalysis in these practices. Reference testing was performed in a primary care laboratory (Saltro, Utrecht, The Netherlands).Primary and secondary outcome measuresAnalytical performance of automated and visual urinalysis compared with the reference laboratory method was the primary outcome measure, analysed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) and Cohen's κ coefficient for agreement. Secondary outcome measure was the user-friendliness of the POCT analyser.ResultsAutomated urinalysis by experienced and routinely trained practice assistants in general practice performs as good as visual urinalysis for nitrite, leucocytes and erythrocytes. Agreement for nitrite is high for automated and visual urinalysis. κ's are 0.824 and 0.803 (ranked as very good and good, respectively). Agreement with the central laboratory reference standard for automated and visual urinalysis for leucocytes is rather poor (0.256 for POCT and 0.197 for visual, respectively, ranked as fair and poor). κ's for erythrocytes are higher: 0.517 (automated) and 0.416 (visual), both ranked as moderate. The Urisys 1100 analyser was easy to use and considered to be not prone to flaws.ConclusionsAutomated urinalysis performed as good as traditional visual urinalysis on reading of nitrite, leucocytes and erythrocytes in routine general practice. Implementation of automated urinalysis in general practice is justified as automation is expected to reduce human errors in patient identification and transcribing of results.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective, observational study comparing automated and visual point-of-care urinalysis in general practice

Delft¹,

Goedhart²,

Spigt

et al. 2016

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These microchemistry systems have been available for many years and allow for qualitative and semiquantitative analyses in routine urinalysis. Using semiautomatic or fully automatic instruments to read a dipstick may eliminate interobserver variability and time‐sensitive errors associated with visual interpretation .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using semiautomatic or fully automatic instruments to read a dipstick may eliminate interobserver variability and † These authors contributed equally to this work. time-sensitive errors associated with visual interpretation (4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of Three URiSCAN Devices for Routine Urinalysis

Kwon

Ryu

et al. 2015

Clinical Laboratory Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A correct urinalysis result offers a direct indication of the patient's renal and genitourinary system and helps to monitor other body systems (Chien et al, 2007). Urinary sediment analysis is usually performed by trained technicians who count the number of each kind of particles using a microscope focusing on the ground slide with urinary sample or through a monitor screen displaying the biological particles that are digitally captured from the urinary sample.…”

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%