Journal
DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Volume 75, Issue 1, Pages 5-8Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.08.026
Keywords
Automated urinalysis; Screening urinalysis; Cost analysis
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
We cultured 1000 urines and tested them with the iQ200 Workstation (Iris Diagnostics, Chatsworth, CA, and Arkray, Edina, MN, USA) for leukocyte esterase and nitrite (LE/N), white blood cells (WBC), all small particles (ASP), bacteria, and yeast. Positive culture grew >= 10(4) CFU/mL of 1 or 2 uropathogens. Method A assessed LE/N, WBCs >= 6/mu L, and bacteria/yeast. Method B assessed WBCs >= 6/mu L, bacteria/yeast, and ASP >= 10,000. Each was compared to culture results, clinician's diagnosis (CD), or expert review (ER). Sensitivities by culture were 88.7% (Method A) and 883% (Method B), with negative predictive values (NPVs) of 94.4% and 94.2%, respectively. Sensitivity and NPV increased for comparison to the CD (99.6%) and NPVs of 99.0% and 99.3% compared to ER. ASP did not enhance specificity, sensitivity, or NPV. The iQ200 Workstation performed well by any standard, thus providing a reliable system by which to improve the use of laboratory resources. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available