These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Verification of Atellica 1500 and comparison with Iris urine analyser and urine culture.
    Author: Nikler A, Čičak H, Bejuk D, Radišić Biljak V, Šimundić AM.
    Journal: Biochem Med (Zagreb); 2022 Feb 15; 32(1):010701. PubMed ID: 34955669.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: The aims of study were to assess: 1) performance specifications of Atellica 1500, 2) comparability of Atellica 1500 and Iris, 3) the accuracy of both analysers in their ability to detect bacteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Carryover, linearity, precision, reproducibility, and limit of blank (LoB) verification were evaluated for erythrocyte and leukocyte counts. ICSH 2014 protocol was used for estimation of carryover, CLSI EP15-A3 for precision, and CLSI EP17 for LoB verification. Comparison for quantitative parameters was evaluated by Bland-Altman plot and Passing-Bablok regression. Qualitative parameters were evaluated by Weighted kappa analysis. Sixty-five urine samples were randomly selected and sent for urine culture which was used as reference method to determine the accuracy of bacteria detection by analysers. RESULTS: Analytical specifications of Atellica 1500 were successfully verified. Total of 393 samples were used for qualitative comparison, while 269 for sediment urinalysis. Bland-Altman analysis showed statistically significant proportional bias for erythrocytes and leukocytes. Passing-Bablok analysis for leukocytes pointed to significant constant and minor proportional difference, while it was not performed for erythrocytes due to significant data deviation from linearity. Kappa analysis resulted in the strongest agreements for pH, ketones, glucose concentrations and leukocytes, while the poorest agreement for bacteria. The sensitivity and specificity of bacteria detection were: 91 (59-100)% and 76 (66-87)% for Atellica 1500 and 46 (17-77)% and 96 (87-100)% for Iris. CONCLUSION: There are large differences between Atellica 1500 and Iris analysers, due to which they are not comparable and can not be used interchangeably. While there was no difference in specificity of bacteria detection, Iris analyser had greater sensitivity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]