The comparison of automated urine analyzers with manual microscopic examination for urinalysis automated urine analyzers and manual urinalysis

Objectives Urinalysis is one of the most commonly performed tests in the clinical laboratory. However, manual microscopic sediment examination is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and lacks standardization in high-volume laboratories. In this study, the concordance of analyses between manual microscopic examination and two different automatic urine sediment analyzers has been evaluated. Design and methods 209 urine samples were analyzed by the Iris iQ200 ELITE (İris Diagnostics, USA), Dirui FUS-200 (DIRUI Industrial Co., China) automatic urine sediment analyzers and by manual microscopic examination. The degree of concordance (Kappa coefficient) and the rates within the same grading were evaluated. Results For erythrocytes, leukocytes, epithelial cells, bacteria, crystals and yeasts, the degree of concordance between the two instruments was better than the degree of concordance between the manual microscopic method and the individual devices. There was no concordance between all methods for casts. Conclusion The results from the automated analyzers for erythrocytes, leukocytes and epithelial cells were similar to the result of microscopic examination. However, in order to avoid any error or uncertainty, some images (particularly: dysmorphic cells, bacteria, yeasts, casts and crystals) have to be analyzed by manual microscopic examination by trained staff. Therefore, the software programs which are used in automatic urine sediment analysers need further development to recognize urinary shaped elements more accurately. Automated systems are important in terms of time saving and standardization.