Urine particle evaluation: A comparison between the UF-1000i and quantitative microscopy

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 48, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1107-1111

  Manoni, Fabio ^a   Tinello, Agostino ^a   Fornasiero, Lucia ^a   Hoffer, Paolo ^a   Temporin, Valeria ^a   Valverde, Sara ^b   Gessoni, Gianluca ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^b Ospedale Civile   (Italy)

Author keywords

automated system; UF 1000i; urine analysis

Indexed keywords

HYALIN;

ACCURACY; ANALYZER; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EPITHELIUM CELL; ERYTHROCYTE; ERYTHROCYTE MEMBRANE; HUMAN; LABORATORY; LEUKOCYTE; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL APPARATUS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; MICROSCOPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; URINALYSIS;

AUTOMATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EPITHELIAL CELLS; ERYTHROCYTE COUNT; HUMANS; KIDNEY DISEASES; LEUKOCYTE COUNT; MICROSCOPY; URINALYSIS; URINE;

EID: 77955443318     PISSN: 14346621     EISSN: 14374331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2010.233     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. 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 analyzer. Clin Chim Acta 2005;358:167-174
2. Chien TI, Kao JT, Lin PC, Hong JS, Hsieh HP, Chien MJ. Urine sediment examination: a comparison of automated urinalysis systems and manual microscopy. Clin Chim Acta 2007;384:28-34.
3. De Keijzer MH, Brandts RW. Flow cytometry and the urine laboratory: field evaluation of the Sysmex UF-100. Sysmex J Int 1997;7:117-122
4. Rabinovich A, Arzoumanian L, Curcio K, Dougherty B, Abdel- Baset H. Urinalysis approved guidelines, 3rd ed. CLSI GP16- A3 2009;29:1-33.
5. Kouri T, Fogazzi V, Gant V, Hallander H, Hofmann W, Guder W. European Urinalysis Guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2000;60S2:1-96.
6. Wah DT, Wises PK, Butch AW. Analytic performance of the iQ200 automated urine microscopic analyzer and comparison with manual counts using Fuchs-Rosenthal cell chambers. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:290-296
7. Kouri TT, Kahkonen U, Malminiemi K, Vuento R, Rowan RM. Evaluation of Sysmex UF-100 urine flow cytometer vs chamber counting of supravitally stained specimens and conventional bacterial cultures. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;112:25-35.
8. Sutheesophon K, Wiwanitkit V, Boonchalermvichian C, Charuruks N. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-100 automated urinalysis analyzer and comparative study with JCCLS method. J Med Assoc Thai 2002;85S1:S246-52.
9. Delanghe JR, Kouri TT, Huber AR, Hannemann-Pohl K, Guder WG, Lun A, et. al. The role of automated particle flow cytometry in clinical practice. Clin Chim Acta 2000;301:1-18.
10. Regeniter A, Haenni V, Risch L, Kochli HP, Colombo JP, Frei R, et. al. Urine analysis performed by flow cytometry: reference range determination and comparison to morphological findings, dipstick, chemistry and bacterial results - A multi center study. Clin Nephrol 2001;55:384-392
11. Ottinger 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;49:617-623
12. Lun A, Ziebig R, Hammer H, Otting U, Filler G, Sinha P. Reference values for neonates and children for the UF-100 urine flow cytometer. Clin Chem 1999;45:1879-1880
13. Shayanfar N, Tobler U, von Eckardstein A, Bestmann L. Automated urinalysis: first experiences and comparison between the Iris iQ200 urine microscopy system, the Sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer and manual microscopic particle counting. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:1251-1256
14. Manoni F, Fornasiero L, Ercolin M, Tinello A, Ferrian M, Valverde S, et. al. Laboratory diagnosis of renal failure: urine conductivity and tubular function. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2009;61: 17-20.
15. Manoni F, Ercolin M, Bountis I, Temporin V, Tinello A, Fornasiero L, et. al. Valutazione dell'analizzatore Sysmex UF-1000i per l'esame automatizzato del sedimento urinario. Biochim Clin 2009;33:550-555
16. Ottinger C, Regeniter A, Kochli H, Huber AR. Standardized counting of particles in the urine: a comparison between flow cytometry, cell chamber counting and traditional sediment analysis. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax 2004;93:15-21.
17. Ottinger C, Huber AR. Quantitative urine particle analysis: integrative approach for the optimal combination of automation with UF-100 and microscopic review with the cell chamber. Clin Chem 2003;49:1559-1560
18. Mayo S, Acevedo D, Quinones-Torrelo C, Canos I, Sancho M. Clinical laboratory automated urinalysis: comparison among automated microscopy, flow cytometry, two test strips analyzers, and manual microscopic examination of urine sediments. J Clin Lab Anal 2008;22:262-270
19. Roggeman S, Zaman Z. Safely reducing manual urine microscopy analyses by combining urine flow cytometer and strip results. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:872-878
20. Terajima S, Yokomizo H, Yagi A, Miura M, Amano C. Evaluation study for reference intervals of urine sediments using UF-1000i in medical check-up population. Sysmex J Int 2009; 19:82-86
21. Terachi M, Nishida Y, Funahashi J, Kakizoe K, Toichi M, Shimada M, et. al. Evaluation study for reference interval of UF- 1000i using urine specimens from school children. Sysmex J Int 2009;19:1-4.
22. Manoni F, Fornasiero L, Ercolin M, Tinello A, Ferrian M, Hoffer P, et. al. Cut-off values for bacteria and leukocytes for urine flow cytometer Sysmex UF-1000i in urinary tract infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;65:130-137
23. Berry DE. Turnaround time improvement and department-wide benefits of automation in urinalysis. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 2006;28:20-22