Is unselective biochemical urine testing cost effective?

Clinitek Auto 2000, and Boehringer Mannheim Urotron?may eliminate many of the avoidable errors commonly encountered. Nevertheless, I believe that this would be impracticable, expen? sive, and undesirable. Urine analysis fulfils many of the criteria of the ideal laboratory test, being simple to perform, inexpensive, easy to interpret, quick, applicable in many clinical settings, and able to be carried out in a wide variety of situations. The problems that arise with urine analysis generally occur for explicable reasons. These difficulties are common enough to make current standards unsatis? factory. I urge the adoption of the quality control strategies ou tuned here with a view to generally improving analytical performance. This can only result in better clinical care.

[1]  C. Fraser,et al.  Effectiveness of an outpatient urine screening program. , 1977, Clinical chemistry.

[2]  J. Frohlich,et al.  Physicians' response to abnormal results of routine urinalysis. , 1976, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[3]  A. Burkhardt,et al.  A reagent strip for measuring the specific gravity of urine. , 1982, Clinical chemistry.

[4]  G. Walker,et al.  NOVEL METHOD FOR MEASURING SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF URINE , 1982, The Lancet.

[5]  C. Fraser,et al.  Timing of urinalysis reactions when reagent strips are used. , 1978, Clinical Chemistry.

[6]  G Sandler,et al.  Costs of unnecessary tests. , 1979, British medical journal.

[7]  D. Milligan,et al.  Diagnosis of classical galactosaemia. , 1977, Archives of disease in childhood.