4.7 Article

Verification of UriSed 3 PRO automated urine microscope in regional laboratory environment

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 515, Issue -, Pages 96-103

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2021.01.005

Keywords

Automation; Particle counting; Poisson distribution; Urinalysis; Urine sediment; UriSed 3 PRO

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study validated the UriSed 3 PRO automated microscopes and found high accuracy and consistency in white blood cell, red blood cell, and epithelial cell counts when compared with visual microscopy and urine culture. The instruments also demonstrated high sensitivity in detecting bacteria.
Background and aims: Ten UriSed 3 PRO automated microscopes (77 Elektronika, Hungary) were verified for nine HUSLAB laboratories with 160 000 annual urine samples. Materials and methods: Particle counting of the primary UriSed 3 PRO instrument (77 Elektronika, Hungary) was verified against reference visual microscopy with 463 urine specimens, and against urine culture on chromogenic agar plates with parallel 396 specimens. Nine secondary instruments were compared pairwise with the primary instrument. Results: Relative imprecisions compared to Poisson distribution, R(CV), were estimated to be 1.0 for white blood cell (WBC) and 1.5 for red blood cell (RBC) counts, respectively. Spearman's correlations against visual microscopy were rS = 0.94 for WBC, rS = 0.87 for RBC, and rS = 0.82 for squamous epithelial cell (SEC) counts. Agreement with visual microscopy (Cohen's weighted kappa) was 0.94 for WBC, 0.89 for RBC, 0.88 for SEC, 0.59 for combined casts, and 0.49 for non-squamous epithelial cells (NEC). Bacteria were detected with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 39 against culture at 107 CFB/L (104 CFU/mL). Created flagging limits allowed automated reporting for 70-75% of patient results. Conclusions: UriSed 3 PRO instruments were adopted into routine use after acceptance of the verification.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available