Korean Journal of Clinical Laboratory Science (대한임상검사과학회지)

Korean Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (대한임상검사과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of WBCs and RBCs Concordance between the Cobas u 701 Analyzer and Three Manual Microscopy Methods in Urine Sediment

소변 침전물에서 Cobas u 701 Analyzer와 세 가지 수동 현미경검사법의 백혈구와 적혈구의 일치도 비교

  • Hyeok-Jae LEE (Department of Biomedical Laboratory Science, Gwangju Health University) ;
  • Min-Hyeok LEE (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Suncheon Hankook Hospital)
  • 이혁재 (광주보건대학교 임상병리학과) ;
  • 이민혁 (순천한국병원 진단검사의학과)
  • Received : 2023.05.08
  • Accepted : 2023.06.19
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Urine sediments are performed by a microscopic examination of centrifuged urine by medical technologists. This study examined different urine sediment preparation procedures. The 107 fresh urine specimens that tested positive from white blood cells (WBCs) and red blood cells (RBCs) in the urine dipstick test and the cobas u 701 analyzer, respectively, were selected for manual microscopy. This study evaluated an automated urine sediment analyzer and three manual microscopy methods for WBCs and RBCs. The methods were performed according to the test guidelines. The coefficients of determination between the cobas u 701 analyzer and the Korean Association of Quality Assurance for Clinical Laboratory (KAQACL) for WBCs and RBCs were r2=0.977 and r2=0.970, respectively. The concordance rates between the cobas u 701 analyzer and KAQACL for WBCs and RBCs were 74.8% and 77.6%, respectively. A good correlation and concordance with the automatic analyzer were shown when the specimens were prepared and examined using the KAQACL method. Consequently, the differences in the urine sediment preparation procedures affected the sediment concentrations, influencing the cell number per high power field (HPF).

소변 침전물은 일반적으로 검사자가 원심분리한 소변을 현미경으로 검사한다. 따라서 소변 침전물 표본제작 과정의 차이가 검사 결과에 영향을 미치는지 확인했다. 요시험지 검사와 cobas u 701 analyzer에서 각각 백혈구 및 적혈구가 양성 반응으로 나온 107개의 신선한 검체를 수동 현미경검사를 위해 선택했다. 연구에서는 백혈구와 적혈구에 대해 자동분석기와 세 가지 수동 현미경검사법을 각각의 검사지침에 따라 평가하였다. 백혈구와 적혈구에 대한 cobas u 701 analyzer와 대한임상검사정도관리협회 간의 결정계수는 각각 r2=0.977과 r2=0.970이었다. 백혈구와 적혈구에 대한 cobas u 701 analyzer와 대한 임상검사정도관리협회 간의 일치도는 각각 74.8%, 77.6%였다. 대한임상검사정도관리협회 방법으로 표본을 제작하여 검사한 결과에서 자동분석기와 가장 좋은 상관성 및 일치도를 보였다. 결과적으로 소변 침전물 표본제작 방법의 차이는 침전물 농도에 영향을 미쳤으며 이는 HPF당 세포 등급과 수에 영향을 미쳤다. 따라서 보다 일관되고 정확한 검사 결과를 위해 소변 침전물 표본제작 과정을 표준화하는 것이 좋을 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Hemmelgarn BR, Manns BJ, Lloyd A, James MT, Klarenbach S, Quinn RR, et al. Relation between kidney function, proteinuria, and adverse outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303:423-429. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.39
  2. Huussen J, Koene RA, Hilbrands LB. The (fixed) urinary sediment, a simple and useful diagnostic tool in patients with haematuria. Neth J Med. 2004;62:4-9.
  3. Simerville JA, Maxted WC, Pahira JJ. Urinalysis: a comprehensive review. Am Fam Physician. 2005;71:1153-1162. Erratum in: Am Fam Physician. 2006;74:1096.
  4. Urinalysis and body fluid analysis. In: Kim KD, editor. Korean society for laboratory medicine, Laboratory Medicine. 5th ed. E-public: 2014. p. 497-508.
  5. Shin SY, Kwon MJ, Woo HY, Park H, Kim YJ. Preliminary evaluation of the URiSCAN SUPER and usefulness of a new urine reagent strip to detect ascorbic acid. J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2011;33:63-69.
  6. Han TH. Urinalysis: the usefulness and limitations of urine dipstick testing. J Korean Soc Pediatr Nephrol. 2013;17:42-48. https://doi.org/10.3339/jkspn.2013.17.2.42
  7. Ben-Ezra J, Bork L, McPherson RA. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-100 automated urinalysis analyzer. Clin Chem. 1998;44:92-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/44.1.92
  8. Winkel P, Statland BE, Jorgensen K. Urine microscopy, an ill-defined method, examined by a multifactorial technique. Clin Chem. 1974;20:436-439. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/20.4.436
  9. Elin RJ, Hosseini JM, Kestner J, Rawe M, Ruddel M, Nishi HH. Comparison of automated and manual methods for urinalysis. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986;86:731-737. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/86.6.731
  10. Jeon CH, Lee AJ, Kim KD. Annual report on external quality assessment scheme for urinalysis and faecal occult blood testing in Korea (2014). J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2015;37:179-189. https://doi.org/10.15263/jlmqa.2015.37.4.179
  11. Delanghe JR, Speeckaert MM. Preanalytics in urinalysis. Clin Biochem. 2016;49:1346-1350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.10.016
  12. Lee AJ, Park CG, Bae YC, Jeon CH. Quality improvement of urinalysis results based on automatic sediment urinalysis and urine strip results. J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2017;39:154-161. https://doi.org/10.15263/jlmqa.2017.39.4.154
  13. Lamchiagdhase P, Preechaborisutkul K, Lomsomboon P, Srisuchart P, Tantiniti P, Khan-u-Ra N, et al. Urine sediment examination: a comparison between the manual method and the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Clin Chim Acta. 2005;358:167-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cccn.2005.02.021
  14. Kim KD, Koo SH, Kim EC, Kim JM, Kim CH, Kim JQ, et al. Annual report on external quality assessment in urinalysis in Korea (1998). J Clin Pathol Qual Control. 1999;21:81-93.
  15. Kim JQ, Kim DC, Jo SS. The present situation of quality assurance of urinalysis including urinary sediment analysis based on Korean external quality assurance survey and its prospective. J Clin Pathol Qual Control. 2000;22:265-270.
  16. Chien TI, Kao JT, Liu HL, Lin PC, Hong JS, Hsieh HP, et al. Urine sediment examination: a comparison of automated urinalysis systems and manual microscopy. Clin Chim Acta. 2007;384:28-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2007.05.012
  17. Bakan E, Ozturk N, Baygutalp NK, Polat E, Akpinar K, Dorman E, et al. Comparison of Cobas 6500 and Iris IQ200 fully-automated urine analyzers to manual urine microscopy. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2016;26:365-375. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.040
  18. Bakan E, Bayraktutan Z, Baygutalp NK, Gul MA, Umudum FZ, Bakan N. Evaluation of the analytical performances of Cobas 6500 and Sysmex UN series automated urinalysis systems with manual microscopic particle counting. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2018;28:020712. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2018.020712
  19. Lee W, Ha JS, Ryoo NH. Comparison of the automated cobas u 701 urine microscopy and UF-1000i flow cytometry systems and manual microscopy in the examination of urine sediments. J Clin Lab Anal. 2016;30:663-671. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.21919
  20. Yalcinkaya E, Erman H, Kirac E, Serifoglu A, Aksoy A, Isman FK, et al. Comparative performance analysis of Urised 3 and DIRUI FUS-200 automated urine sediment analyzers and manual microscopic method. Medeni Med J. 2019;34:244-251. https://doi.org/10.5222/mmj.2019.23169
  21. Kim KD, Koo SH, Kim EC, Kim JM, Kim JH, Kim JQ, et al. Annual report on external quality assessment in urinalysis in Korea (2008). J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2009;31:73-98.
  22. Lee HJ, Park C, Seo MY. Study on the difference of urine sediment preparation for microscopic examination. Korean J Clin Lab Sci 2017;49:366-373. https://doi.org/10.15324/kjcls.2017.49.4.366
  23. Choi H, Yang D, Kwon SJ, Kang PR, Park H, Kim T, et al. Comparison of IRIS Iq200, UF-1000i, and Cobas u701 module automated urine sediment analyzers. Lab Med Online. 2020;10:283-294. https://doi.org/10.47429/lmo.2020.10.4.283
  24. Park J, Kim J. Evaluation of iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Korean J Lab Med. 2008;28:267-273. https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2008.28.4.267
  25. Jung JW, Oh AC, Chang YH, Lee JK, Hong YJ. Comparison of YD URiSCAN PluScope urine microscopic analyzer and Sysmex UF-1000i flow cytometry systems. J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2018;40:223-229. https://doi.org/10.15263/jlmqa.2018.40.4.223
  26. Shayanfar N, Tobler U, von Eckardstein A, Bestmann L. Automated urinalysis: first experiences and a comparison between the Iris iQ200 urine microscopy system, the Sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer and manual microscopic particle counting. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45:1251-1256. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM. 2007.503 Erratum in: Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45:1570.
  27. Pak SI, Oh TH. Statistical test of agreement between measurements in method-comparison study. J Vet Clin. 2011;28:108-112.
  28. Kim CH, Chung CK, Hong HS, Kim EH, Kim MJ, Park BJ. Validation of a simple computerized tool for measuring spinal and pelvic parameters. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:154-162. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.10.SPINE11367
  29. Johnsson AA, Fagman E, Vikgren J, Fisichella VA, Boijsen M, Flinck A, et al. Pulmonary nodule size evaluation with chest tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2012;265:273-282. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111459
  30. Bartlett JW, Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:466-475. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5256
  31. Jung CL, Kim SG, Moon HW, Lee MA, Chung WS. Evaluation and establishment of reference range of automated urine cell analyzer UF-100. J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2008;30:209-215.