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: LX-8000R and UriSed 2 fully automated urine analyzers comparison to manual microscopic examination.
    Author: Evin CER, Aslan Ö.
    Journal: J Med Biochem; 2022 Feb 02; 41(1):91-99. PubMed ID: 35291498.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Urinalysis has an important place in evaluating kidney and urinary tract infections. Automated urine analyzers enhance productivity and turnover in laboratories and economize time and labor required for analysis. In the present study, we evaluated and compared analytic and diagnostic performance of UriSed2 with LX-8000R, which is a novel image-based automated urine sediment analyzer. METHODS: A total of 178 urine samples sent to our laboratory were evaluated by the two urine analyzers and standard manual microscopy. Precision and comparison studies were done in accordance with CLSI guidelines. RESULTS: Sensitivity assessment revealed similar outcomes with both UriSed2 and LX-8000R devices for erythrocyte count (RBC), whereas UriSed2 device yielded higher outcomes for leukocyte count (WBC) and epithelial cells (EPI) than LX-8000R analyzer. Specificity of UriSed2 for WBC and RBC was higher than that of LX-8000R device. According to Gamma statistics, both urine analyzers showed perfect consistency for WBC, RBC and EPI cell counts. Manuel microscopy revealed statistically significant correlation between LX-8000R and UriSed2 in terms of WBC and RBC. Manual evaluation by Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated lower WBC and RBC values and higher EPI as compared to both UriSed2 and LX-8000R devices. As the result of Passing-Bablok regression analysis, both devices were found to be inconsistent with manual microscopy. CONCLUSIONS: We think that evaluation of automated urine analyzers will be more meaningful when they are evaluated together with urine samples and patient clinical findings in addition to comparing with manual microscopy. UVOD: Analiza urina ima važno mesto u proceni infekcija bubrega i urinarnog trakta. Automatski analizatori urina povećavaju produktivnost i promet u laboratorijama i štede vreme i rad potreban za analizu. U ovoj studiji smo procenili i uporedili analitičke i dijagnostičke performanse UriSed2 sa LX-8000R, koji je novi automatizovani analizator za analizu sedimenta urina. METODE: Ukupno 178 uzoraka urina poslanih u našu laboratoriju procenjeno je pomoću dva analizatora urina i standardne ručne mikroskopije. Studije preciznosti i poređenja rađene su u skladu sa smernicama CLSI. REZULTATI: Procena osetljivosti pokazala je slične ishode sa uređajima UriSed2 i LX-8000R za broj eritrocita (RBC), dok je uređaj UriSed2 dao veće rezultate za broj leukocita (WBC) i epitelnih ćelija (EPI) od analizatora LX-8000R. Specifičnost UriSed2 za WBC i RBC bila je veća nego kod LX-8000R uređaja. Prema Gamma statistici, oba analizatora urina pokazala su savršenu konzistenciju za broj ćelija WBC, RBC i EPI. Manuelova mikroskopija otkrila je statistički značajnu korelaciju između LX-8000R i UriSed2 u odnosu na WBC i RBC. Ručna procena Bland-Altmanovom analizom pokazala je niže vrednosti WBC i RBC i veći EPI u poređenju sa UriSed2 i LX-8000R uređajima. Kao rezultat Passing-Bablokove regresijske analize, utvrđeno je da oba uređaja nisu u skladu s ručnom mikroskopijom. ZAKLJUČAK: Smatramo da će evaluacija automatizovanih analizatora urina biti značajnija kada se vrednuju zajedno sa uzorcima urina i kliničkim nalazima pacijenata, poredeći ih sa ručnom mikroskopijom.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]