Urine sediment examination: A comparison between the manual method and the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer

Lamchiagdhase, Pornvaree; Preechaborisutkul, Krisana; Lomsomboon, Pitimon; Srisuchart, Pimpawee; Tantiniti, Pornsri; Khan-u-ra, Nongnute; Preechaborisutkul, Boonsong

doi:10.1016/j.cccn.2005.02.021

Cited by 72 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results have been published previously (9). The UF-100 frequently misclassified erythrocytes as yeasts.…”

Section: Yeastssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…For this study we did not use this advantage so that results would be comparable with the conventional microscopic technique. The main error-prone steps such as centrifugation and manual preparation are omitted and therefore sample analysis is completed in a very short turnaround time (9,30); the hands-on time, including picture or scattergram interpretation, is less than 30 s on average. In our laboratory, which performs approximately 25,000 urinalyses per year, this strategy reduced the workload by approximately 30%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analyses of insoluble urine components on an automated urine microscopy analyzer (Iris iQ200; IRIS International, Inc., Chatsworth, CA, USA) or a flow cytometer (Sysmex UF-100; Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) are possibly helpful for standardization and quantification (8)(9)(10)(11).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Automated urinalysis: first experiences and a comparison between the Iris iQ200 urine microscopy system, the Sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer and manual microscopic particle counting

Shayanfar

Tobler

Eckardstein

et al. 2007

Clinical Chemical Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Automated analysis of insoluble urine components can reduce the workload of conventional microscopic examination of urine sediment and is possibly helpful for standardization. We compared the diagnostic performance of two automated urine sediment analyzers and combined dipstick/automated urine analysis with that of the traditional dipstick/ microscopy algorithm. Methods: A total of 332 specimens were collected and analyzed for insoluble urine components by microscopy and automated analyzers, namely the Iris iQ200 (Iris Diagnostics) and the UF-100 flow cytometer (Sysmex). Results: The coefficients of variation for day-to-day quality control of the iQ200 and UF-100 analyzers were 6.5% and 5.5%, respectively, for red blood cells. We reached accuracy ranging from 68% (bacteria) to 97% (yeast) for the iQ200 and from 42% (bacteria) to 93% (yeast) for the UF-100. The combination of dipstick and automated urine sediment analysis increased the sensitivity of screening to approximately 98%. Conclusions: We conclude that automated urine sediment analysis is sufficiently precise and improves the workflow in a routine laboratory. In addition, it allows sediment analysis of all urine samples and thereby helps to detect pathological samples that would have been missed in the conventional two-step procedure according to the European guidelines. Although it is not a substitute for microscopic sediment examination, it can, when combined with dipstick testing, reduce the number of specimens submitted to microscopy. Visual microscopy is still required for some samples, namely, dysmorphic erythrocytes, yeasts, Trichomonas, oval fat bodies, differentiation of casts and certain crystals. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45: 1251-6.

show abstract

“…Similar results have been published previously (9). The UF-100 frequently misclassified erythrocytes as yeasts.…”

Section: Yeastssupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Automated urinalysis: first experiences and a comparison between the Iris iQ200 urine microscopy system, the Sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer and manual microscopic particle counting

Shayanfar

Tobler

Eckardstein

et al. 2007

Clinical Chemical Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reason for these differences in cell counting is unclear. It can be concluded that manual microscopic technique has several methodological steps that include centrifugation and resuspension steps that are either incomplete or lead to cellular loss and lysis cell counts than microscopy (13,14). We see that differences for manual and automated results was much more evident in urine samples with large particle (bacteria, crystal, and yeast) and nonformed elements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

New generation IQ‐200 automated urine microscopy analyzer compared with KOVA cell chamber

Altekin

Kadiçesme

Akan

et al. 2010

Clinical Laboratory Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results can be used to support nephrologists who have abandoned urinalysis or perhaps justify further efforts to automate the interpretation of the urine sediment (17)(18)(19)(20)(21); however, we believe that the ready availability and low cost of urine examination and the potential to derive important diagnostic data justify efforts to optimize the quality of urine sediment interpretation by clinicians.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Interobserver Reliability of Urine Sediment Interpretation

Wald¹,

Bell²,

Nisenbaum³

et al. 2009

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: Urine sediment interpretation is frequently used in the evaluation of patients with kidney disease. There has been no systematic evaluation of the reliability of this diagnostic maneuver.Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Digital photographs of urine sediment images were acquired from 165 consecutive patients being evaluated by the nephrology consultation service at a tertiary care hospital. Urine sediment images of 100 patients were randomly selected; 86 patients had images that were deemed to be of sufficient quality, and one image per patient was chosen for inclusion in an internet-based questionnaire.

show abstract

Urine sediment examination: A comparison between the manual method and the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer

Cited by 72 publications

References 8 publications

Automated urinalysis: first experiences and a comparison between the Iris iQ200 urine microscopy system, the Sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer and manual microscopic particle counting

Automated urinalysis: first experiences and a comparison between the Iris iQ200 urine microscopy system, the Sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer and manual microscopic particle counting

New generation IQ‐200 automated urine microscopy analyzer compared with KOVA cell chamber

Interobserver Reliability of Urine Sediment Interpretation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About