Automated flow cytometry compared with an automated dipstick reader for urinalysis.

Recently, the Sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer was developed to automate urinalysis. We compared UF-100 test results with those of an automated dipstick reader. A cross-check of UF-100, dipstick, and microscopic sediment data was performed in 1001 urine samples. Good agreements (P <0.001) were obtained between UF-100 and dipstick data for erythrocytes (r = 0.636) and leukocytes (r = 0.785). Even in urine with low conductivity, the UF-100 could detect lysed erythrocytes. The UF-100 bacterial count was higher among nitrite-positive urine samples (P <0.0001) and was positively correlated with the UF-100 leukocyte count (r = 0.745; P <0.001). In stored urine (24 h), bacterial counts increased, whereas the forward light scatter of leukocytes decreased (P <0.01). Casts and yeast cells reported by the UF-100 should be confirmed by microscopic review because false positives occurred. We suggest that a computer-assisted cross-check of UF-100 and dipstick data allows a clinically acceptable sieving system to reduce the workload of microscopic sediment urinalysis.

[1]  N. Tatsumi,et al.  Urinary sediment analyzed by flow cytometry. , 1995, Cytometry.

[2]  P. Valenstein,et al.  Unnecessary microscopy in routine urinalysis. , 1984, American journal of clinical pathology.

[3]  E. Wong,et al.  'Routine urinalysis'. Is the dipstick enough? , 1985, JAMA.

[4]  W. Guder,et al.  Diagnostic strategies in urinalysis. , 1994, Kidney international. Supplement.

[5]  B. Statland,et al.  Evaluation of the Yellow IRIS. An automated method for urinalysis. , 1986, American journal of clinical pathology.

[6]  A. Bonnardeaux,et al.  A study on the reliability of dipstick urinalysis. , 1994, Clinical nephrology.

[7]  J. Delanghe,et al.  Difficulties in Evaluating Urinalysis following Combined Pancreas–Kidney Transplantation , 1997, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[8]  F. Deindoerfer,et al.  "The Yellow IRIS" urinalysis workstation--the first commercial application of "automated intelligent microscopy". , 1985, Clinical chemistry.

[9]  R. Elin,et al.  Comparison of automated and manual methods for urinalysis. , 1986, American journal of clinical pathology.

[10]  M. Hørder,et al.  Falsely negative urinary leucocyte counts due to delayed examination. , 1980, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[11]  B E Statland,et al.  Urine microscopy, an ill-defined method, examined by a multifactorial technique. , 1974, Clinical chemistry.

[12]  R. Christenson,et al.  Results of dipstick tests, visual inspection, microscopic examination of urine sediment, and microbiological cultures of urine compared for simplifying urinalysis. , 1985, Clinical chemistry.

[13]  S. Sandberg,et al.  Implications of probability analysis for interpreting results of leukocyte esterase and nitrite test strips. , 1989, Clinical chemistry.

[14]  E. Bruck,et al.  National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. , 1980, Pediatrics.

[15]  R. Dorizzi,et al.  Relative density of urine: methods and clinical significance. , 1988, Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences.

[16]  R. Mcpherson,et al.  Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-100 automated urinalysis analyzer. , 1998, Clinical chemistry.