Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 49: 617-623, 2003; 10.1373/49.4.617
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ottiger, C.
Right arrow Articles by Huber, A. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ottiger, C.
Right arrow Articles by Huber, A. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow Automation and Analytical Techniques
(Clinical Chemistry. 2003;49:617-623.)
© 2003 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Quantitative Urine Particle Analysis: Integrative Approach for the Optimal Combination of Automation with UF-100 and Microscopic Review with KOVA Cell Chamber

Cornelia Ottiger1 and Andreas R. Huber1,a

1 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kantonsspital Aarau, CH-5001 Aarau, Switzerland.

aAuthor for correspondence. E-mail andreas.huber{at}ksa.ch.

Background: Automated systems have enabled the counting of particles in urine to be standardized. Their superiority over traditional sediment analysis has been well documented, but they have not gained wide acceptance. The reasons for this are that sediment analysis has been performed and interpreted for decades. Additionally, pathologic casts and other unknown particles still must be confirmed under the microscope. Furthermore, comparison between the methods has revealed outliers and thus decreased confidence in automation.

Methods: We used the standardized KOVA cell chamber system to count particles and compared the results with UF-100 flow cytometry as an alternative to traditional sediment analysis.

Results: We compared 252 randomly selected urine samples and obtained a review rate of 33%. Microscopic verification was necessary because of the presence of casts, yeast, sperm, dysmorphic erythrocytes, and some misclassified erythrocytes or leukocytes that were detected by incongruent dipstick results and abnormal scattergrams. We obtained correlation coefficients of 0.966 for erythrocytes and 0.935 for leukocytes. Criteria for an algorithm to identify samples that needed microscopic review were derived from comparisons between the number of particles from UF-100, dipstick results, cell chamber counting, and sediment analysis.

Conclusions: Automated cell counting combined with microscopic counting with a standardized cell chamber system is useful. An objective algorithm for review criteria can be developed via systematic comparison of UF-100 flow cytometry and microscopy. Only urine samples that meet these criteria need to be confirmed microscopically.




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
M. Gai, G. B. Piccoli, G. P. Segoloni, and G. Lanfranco
Microscopic Urinalysis and Automated Flow Cytometry in a Nephrology Laboratory
Clin. Chem., September 1, 2003; 49(9): 1559 - 1560.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.