Automated urinalysis. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-50.

We assessed the Sysmex UF-50 for reproducibility of results and carryover rate by performing between- and within-run precision analyses on 315 urine samples, evaluated the feasibility of using the UF-50 to measure urinary cellular and noncellular components by comparing results from the UF-50 with results of manual urinalysis using the Kova system, and performed side-by-side comparison of the within-run reproducibility from the UF-50, the UF-100, and the Kova system. Results from the UF-50 and UF-100 were highly reproducible, and the carryover rate was 0.5% or less for the urinary components. In between-run precision assays, the coefficients of variation for UF-50 results for all cellular components were less than 10%. The agreement (gamma statistics) between values from the UF-50 and the Kova system was excellent for RBC, WBC, and bacterial counts. The cell counts from the UF-50 for RBCs, WBCs, epithelial cells, and bacteria were 52%, 63%, 54%, and 110%, respectively, of those measured by manual urinalysis. The UF-50 performed quantitative analysis in 72 seconds, compared with 330 seconds for manual methods. The UF-50 is suitable for the first screening to detect hematuria, pyuria, and bacteriuria.

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

[2]  T. Hyodo,et al.  Analysis of urinary red blood cells of healthy individuals by an automated urinary flow cytometer. , 1997, Nephron.

[3]  G. Schumann,et al.  Comparing Slide Systems for Microscopic Urinalysis , 1996 .

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

[5]  D. Nagel,et al.  Urinalysis with the new fully automated analyzer Supertron. , 1995, European journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry : journal of the Forum of European Clinical Chemistry Societies.

[6]  M. Hiraoka,et al.  Urine microscopy on a counting chamber for diagnosis of urinary infection , 1995, Acta paediatrica Japonica : Overseas edition.

[7]  D. Rodgerson,et al.  Comparison of various methods for the enumeration of blood cells in urine , 1992, Journal of clinical laboratory analysis.

[8]  B. Statland,et al.  Automated urinalysis. , 1988, Clinics in laboratory medicine.

[9]  J. E. Hyde,et al.  Urine sediment analysis by the Yellow IRIS automated urinalysis workstation. , 1987, American journal of clinical pathology.

[10]  D. Wilson,et al.  The Ames Clinitek 200/Multistix 9 urinalysis method compared with manual and microscopic methods. , 1987, Clinical chemistry.

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

[12]  J. A. Ferris Comparison and Standardization of the Urine Microscopic Examination , 1983 .

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