Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis logoLink to Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
. 2008 Jul 11;22(4):262–270. doi: 10.1002/jcla.20257

Clinical laboratory automated urinalysis: comparison among automated microscopy, flow cytometry, two test strips analyzers, and manual microscopic examination of the urine sediments

S Mayo 1, D Acevedo 1,✉, C Quiñones‐Torrelo 1, I Canós 1, M Sancho 1
PMCID: PMC6649239  PMID: 18623125

Abstract

Urinalysis is one of the habitual clinical laboratory procedures, which implies that one of the largest sample volumes currently requires significant labor to examine microscopic sediments. Different analyzers currently used to perform this task have been compared with the manual microscopic sediment examination. The Atlas Clinitek 10 (Bayer Corporation, Diagnostics Division, Tarrytown, NY) and Urisys 2400 (Hitachi Science Systems Ltd., Ibaraki, Japan) test strips analyzers and two automated urinalysis systems, Sysmex UF‐100 (Sysmex Corporation Kobe, Japan) and IRIS iQ200 (International Imaging Remote Systems, Chatsworth, CA), have been considered. We assessed the concordance between the results obtained from 652 freshly collected urine samples for erythrocytes (RBC), leukocytes (WBC), squamous epithelial cells (EC), nitrites/bacteria, and crystals using the methodologies mentioned. A principal components analysis was performed in order to examine the correlation between these parameters. Instrument accuracy was also assessed. The Spearman's statistic (p) showed an adequate agreement between methods for RBC (iQ200=0.473; UF‐100=0.439; Atlas=0.525; Urisys=0.539), WBC (iQ200=0.695; UF‐100=0.761; Atlas=0.684: Urisys=0.620), and bacteria/nitrites (iQ200=0.538; UF‐100=0.647; Atlas=0.532; Urisys=0.561) counts. By applying the Wilcoxon and McNemar tests, a concordance degree was found between 82–99 and 52–95% for the values obtained from the two test strips analyzers considered and from the iQ200 and UF‐100 systems, respectively. From these results, we can conclude that both test strips analyzers are similar and, on the other hand, that automated urinalysis is needed to improve precision and the response time; but sometimes manual microscopic revisions are required, mainly when flags, because of crystals, are detected. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 22:262–270, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Keywords: automated dipstick readers, procedure agreement, routine manual diagnosis, urine analyzers

REFERENCES

  • 1. Winkel P, Statland BB, Jergensen K. Urine microscopy, and III‐defined method, examined by a multifactorial technique. Clin Chem 1974;20/4:436–439. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Langlois MR, Delanghe JR, Steyaert SR, Everaert KC, Buyzere ML. Automated flow cytometry compared with an automated dipstick reader for urinalysis. Clin Chem 1999;45:118–122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Carlson DA, Statland BE. Automated urinalysis. Clin Lab Med 1988;8:449–461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Wargotz ES, Hyde JE, Karcher DS, Hitlan JP, Wilkinson DS. Urine sediment analysis by the Yellow IRIS automated urinalysis workstation. Am J Clin Pathol 1987;88:746–748. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Deindorfler FH, Gangwer JR, Laird CW, Ringold RR. The Yellow IRIS urinalysis workstation. The first commercial application of automated intelligent microscopy. Clin Chem 1985;31:1491–1499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Gai M, Piccoli GB, Segoloni GP, Lanfranco G. Microscopic urinalysis and automated flow cytometry in a nephrology laboratory. Clin Chem 2003;49:1559–1560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Steinmetz J, Henry J, Gueguen R. Etablissement de limites de reference des sediments urinaires measures sur UF‐50TM Sysmex. Ann Biol Clin 2004;62:671–680. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Solomon R, Heller K, Gutman S. Clinical significance of dipstick negative, sediment positive urines: Two reagent dipsticks compared. [Letter] Clin Chem 1987;33:418. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Hannemann‐Pohl KH, Kampf SC. Automation of urine sediment examination: A comparison of the Sysmex UF‐100 automated flow cytometer with routine manual diagnosis (microscopy, test strips, and bacterial culture). Clin Chem Lab Med 1999;37:753–764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Kouri TT, Gant VA, Fogazzi GB, Hofmann W, Hallander HO, Guder WG. Towards European urinalysis guidelines. Introduction of a project under European confederation of laboratory medicine. Clin Chim Acta 2000;297:305–311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. European Urinalysis Group . European urinalysis guidelines. Scan J Clin Lab Invest 2000;60:1–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Penders J, Fiers T, Delangue JR. Quantitative evaluation of urinalysis test strip. Clin Chem 2002;48:2236–2241. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Dias VC, Moschopedis T, Prosser C, Yatscoff RW. Evaluation of the Clinitek® Atlas™ for routine macroscopic urinalysis. Clin Biochem 1996;29:217–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Delangue JR, Kouri TT, Huber AR, et al. The role of automated urine particle flow cytometry in clinical practice. Clin Chim Acta 2000;301:1–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Chan RW, Szeto CC. Advances in the clinical laboratory assessment of urinary sediment. Clin Chim Acta 2004;340:67–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. IUC Product Development Division TOA Medical Electronics . Performance of the Sysmex UF‐100 fully automated urine cell analyzer. Sysmex J Int 1996;6:36–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Apeland T, Mestad O, Hetland O. Assessment of haematuria: Automated urine flowmetry vs microscopy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001;16:1615–1619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Ben‐Ezra J, Bork L, McPherson RA. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF‐100 automated urinalysis analyzer. Clin Chem 1998;44:92–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Fenili D, Pirovano B. The automation of sediment urinalysis using a new urine flow cytometer (UF‐100). Clin Chem Lab Med 1998;36:909–917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Kouri TT, Kahkonen U, Malminiemi K, Vuento R, Rowan RM. Evaluation of Sysmex UF‐100 urine flow cytometer vs chamber counting of supravitally stined specimens and conventional bacterial cultures. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;112:25–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Ottiger 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Manoni F, Valverde S, Antico F, Salvadego MM, Gacomini A, Gessoni G. Field evaluation of a second‐generation cytometer UF‐100 in diagnosis of acute urinary tract infections in adult patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2002;8:662–668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Dimech W, Roney K. Evaluation of an automated urinalysis system for testing urine chemistry, microscopy and culture. Pathology 2002;34:170–177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Regeniter A, Haenni V, Risch L, et al. Urine analysis performed by flow cytometry: Reference range determination and comparison to morphological finding, dipstick chemistry and bacterial culture results—A multicenter study. Clin Nephrol 2001;55:384–392. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Lun A, Ziebig R, Priem F, Piller G, Sinha P. Routine workflow for use of urine strips and urine flow cytometer UF‐100 in the hospital laboratory. Clin Chem 1999;45:1305–1307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Haliassos A, Katritsis D, Mandalaki E, Bizioura L, Antonopoulou R, Chiotinis N. Evaluation of integration of the Iris diagnostics iQ200TM automated urine microscopy analyzer in a clinical laboratory. Clin Chem 2005;51:A214–A215. [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Lee G, Lee K, Yoon S, et al. Evaluation of the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. [Abstract] Clin Chem 2005;51:A216. [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Cappelleti P, De Rosa R, Mottola A, Biasioli B. Evaluation of the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. [Abstract] Clin Chem 2005;51:A221. [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Wah DT, Wises PK, Butch AW. Analytic performance of the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer and comparison with manual counts using Fuchs–Rosenthal cell chambers. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:290–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Lamchiagdhase P, Preechaborisudkul K, Lomsomboon P, et al. Urine sediment examination: A comparison between the manual method and the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Clin Chim Acta 2005;358:167–174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Alves L, Ballester F, Camps J, Joven J. Preliminary evaluation of the Iris iQ200 automated urine analyzer. Clin Chem Lab Med 2005;43:967–970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Vogiatzakis E, Kouvardas S, Gkoka A, et al. Comparison and evaluation of urine particle analysis methods: The iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer vs. manual microscopy. Clin Chem 2005;51:A215–A216. [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Fuller E, Threalte GA, Henry JB. 2005. Examen básico de la orina In: Henry JB, editor. El Laboratorio en el Diagnóstico Clínico. ed original. Madrid: Marban Libros. [Google Scholar]
  • 35. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards . Urinalysis and collection, transportation and preservation of urine specimens; approved guideline (NCCLS document GP16‐A). Villanova PA: NCCLS, 1995. p 51–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Henry JB, Kurec AS. 2005. Laboratorio clínico: Organización, objetivos y práctica In: Henry JB, editor. El Laboratorio en el Diagnóstico Clínico. ed original. Madrid: Marban Libros. [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Kouri T, Gyory A, Rowan RM. ISLH recommended reference procedure for the enumeration of particles in urine. Lab Haematol 2003;9:58–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Wold S, Esbensen K, Geladi P. 1987. Principal Component Analysis. Chimometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V. [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Chien TI, Kao JT, Liu HL, et al. Urine sediment examination: A comparison of automated urinalysis systems and manual microscopy. Clin Chim Acta 2007;384:28–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Tofaletti J, Dotson MA, Shearman P, Koontz A. Comparison of two automated systems for urine chemistry and urine sediment analysis. Lab Haematol 1999;5:123–129. [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Linko S, Kouri TT, Toivonen E, Ranta PH, Chapoulaud E, Lalla M. Analytical performance of the Iris iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Clin Chim Acta 2006;372:54–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES