Giray BOZKAYA, Sibel BİLGİLİ, Gizem ERCAN, Nuriye UZUNCAN

OTOMATİZE İDRAR ANALİZÖR SEDİMENT İLE MANUEL MİKROSKOBİK SEDİMENT SONUÇLARININ KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Giriş: İdrarın mikroskobik analizi üriner sistem hastalıklarının tan ı ve tedavisinde oldukça önemlidir. Tam idrar tahlili laboratuvar istemlerinin büyük bir k ısmını oluşturduğundan art ık yüksek kapasiteli laboratuvarlarda tam otomatize idrar analizörleri kullanılmaya ba şlanmıştır. Çal ışmamızda laboratuvarımızda kullandığımız tam otomatik idrar analizörü LabUMat-UriSed 2’nin idrar sedimentasyon sonuçları ile manuel mikroskobik yöntemin karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Laboratuvarımıza gelen 265 idrar örneği normal veya patolojik ayrımı yapılmadan rastgele seçilerek çalışmamıza dahil edildi. İdrar örnekleri eş zamanlı olarak LabUMat-UriSed 2 idrar analizöründe çalışıldı ve mikroskopta manuel bakısı yapıldı. Mikroskobik görüntülerdeki eritrosit, lökosit ve epitel hücre sayıları 10 farklı sahadaki ortalamaları alınarak değerlendirildi.Sonuçların analizinde SPSS 21.0 istatistik programı kullanıldı. Bulgular:Hücre say ıları arasındaki korelasyon katsay ısı lökosit için r=0,904, eritrosit için r=0,833 ve epitel hücreleri için ise r=0,846 idi. Üç değer için de p

COMPARISON OF AUTOMATED URINE ANALYZER SEDIMENT AND MANUAL MICROSCOPIC SEDIMENT RESULTS

Indroduction: Microscopic analysis of urine is very important in the diagnosis and treatment of urinary system diseases. Since full urinalysis constitutes a large part of laboratory requests, fully automated urine analyzers have started to be used in high capacity laboratories. In our study, it was aimed to compare the urine sedimentation results of the fully automatic urine analyzer LabUMat-UriSed 2 with the manual microscopic method that we use in our laboratory. Material and Methods: Our study included 265 randomly selected urine samples coming to our laboratory, regardless of normal or pathological distinction. Ur ine samples were studied simultaneously on the LabUMat- UriSed 2 urine analyzer and manually examined under the microscope. The erythrocyte, leukocyte and epithelial cell counts in microscopic images were evaluated by ta king their averages in 10 different areas. SPSS 21.0 program was used for statistical analysis of the results. Results: The correlation coefficient between cell counts obtained by both automatic device and manual method was r = 0.904 for leukocyte, r = 0.833 for erythrocyte and r = 0.846 for epithelial cells. For all three values, p

PDF

___

1. Memi şoğulları R, Ak YH, Orhan N, Yavuz Ö. Böbrek Bi yopsisi Kadar Bilgi Veren Tetkik: Rutin İdrar Analizi. Düzce T ıp Fakültesi Dergisi 2008; (3): 77- 84.
2. Perazella MA. The urine sediment as a biomarker of kidney disease.Am J Kidney Dis 2015; (2): 272.
3. Akgün A, Sa ğır F, Alataş Ö, Çolak Ö.İdrarın Mikroskopik İncelenmesi: Otomatik analizör ve manuel sonuçlar ın karşılaştırılması. T Klin Tıp Bilimleri 2000; 20(3): 154-9.
4. European urinalysis guidelines. Summary. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2000; 60(Suppl 231): 1-96.
5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. CLSI Document GP16-A3.Urinalysis; Approved Guideline-Third Edition 2009: 22-24
6. Huysal K, Üstündağ Y.Automated Urine Analysers :Microscopic Examination.İdrar Analizörleri.Türk Klinik Biyokimya Dergisi 2015; 13(2): 83-87.
7. Zaman Z, Fogazzi GB, Garigali G, Croci MD, Bayer G, Kránicz T. Urine sediment anal ysis: Analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX – a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser. Clin Chim Acta 2010; 411(3–4): 147–54.
8. Landis JR.Koch GG.The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics 1977; 33 (1): 159-74.
9. Dimech W,Roney K.Evaluation of an automated urinalysis system for testing urine chemistry , microscopy and culture.Pathology 2002; 34(2): 170-77.
10. Köken T.Serteser M.Kahraman A.Manuel yöntem ile idrar sediment analizinin otomatik idrar analizörü ile kar şılaştırılması. Kocatepe Tıp Dergisi 2001; 2: 159-62.
11. Nagy E.Evaluation of ürised 3 automated urine microscopy analyser.Clinical Laboratory International 2016 ;11.www.cli- online com &search 27271
12. İnce FD,Ellidağ HY,Köseoğlu M,Şimşek N,Yalçın H,Zengin MO. The comparison of automated urine analyzers with manual microscopic examination for urinalysis automated urine analyzers and manual uri nalysis.Practical Laboratory Medicine 2016; 5:14–20 .
13. Zaman Z,Fogazzi GB,Garigali G,Croci MD, Bayer G,Kránicz T. Urine sediment anal ysis: analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX® — A new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411(3-4): 147-54.
14. Yalcinkaya E ,Erman H, Kirac E,Serifoglu A, Aksoy A, Isman F K ve ark. Comparative Performance Analysis of Urised 3 and DIRUI FUS-200 Automated Urine Sediment Analyzers and Manual Microscopic Method. Medeni Med J 2019; 34(3): 244-51.
15. Laiwejpithaya S , Wongkrajang P,Reesukumal K, Bucha C , Meepanya S, Pattanavin C, Khejonnit V, Chuntarut A. UriSed 3 and UX-2000 automated urine sediment analyzers vs. manual microscopic method: A comparative performance analysis. J Clin Lab Anal 2018; 32(2) e22249.
16. Jiang T, Chen P, Ouyang J, Zhang S, Cai D. Urine parti cles analysis: performance evaluation of Sysmex UF-1000i and comparison among urine flow cytometer, dipstick, and visual microscopic examination. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2011; 71(1): 30-7.
17. Yüksel H, K ılıç E, Ekinci A, Evliyaoğlu O. Comparison of Fully Automated Urine Sediment Analyzers H800-FUS100 and Labumat-Urised with Manual Microscopy. J Clin Lab Anal 2013; 27(4): 312–16.
18. O Aydın,H EllidağE Eren,N Yilmaz High false positives and false negat ives in yeast parameter in an automated urine sediment analyzer. Med Biochem 2015; 34(3): 1–5.
19. Jiang T, Chen P, Ouyang J, Zhang S, Cai D. Urine parti cles analysis: performance evaluation of Sysmex UF-1000i and comparison among urine flow cytometer, dipstick, and visual microscopic examination. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2011; 71(1): 30-7.
20. Ak ın OK, Serdar MA, Cizmeci Z, Genc O, Aydin S. Comparison of LabUMat-with-UriSed and iQ200 fully automatic urine sediment analysers with manual urine analysis. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 2009; 53 (Pt 2): 139–44.
21. Karakukcu C, Kayman T, Oztürk A, Torun Y.A. Analytic performance of bacteriuria and leukocyturia obtained by urised in culture positive urinary tract ınfections. Clin. Lab 2012; 58(1-2): 107-11.
22. Sterry-Blunt RE,Randall K, Doughton M, Aliyu S, Enoch D. Screening urine samples fort he absence of urinary tract infection using the SediMax automated microscopy analyser.J Med Microbiol 2015;4(6):605-9.
23. Ma J,Wang C,YueJ,Li M,Zhang H,Ma X et al. Clinical laboratory urine analysis: comparison of the Urised automated microscopic analyzer and the manuel microscopy Clin Lab.2013;59(11-12):1297-303.
24. Tantisaranon P,Dumkengkhachornwong K, Aiadsakun P, Hnoonual A . A comparison of automated urine analyzers cobas 6500, UN 3000-111b and iRICELL 3000 with manual microscopic urinalysis Practical Laboratory Medicine 2021; 24: e00203.
25. Wesarachkitti B, Khejonnit V , Pratumvinit B , Reesukumal K, Meepanya S , Pattanavin C et al.Fully Automated Urinalysis Analyzers UX-2000 and Cobas 6500. Lab Med 2016; 47(2): 124-33.
26. U ğur Ercin. A Comparative study on the performances of 77 el ektronika urised 2-labUmat2 and Dirui FUS-200-H800 Urine Analyzers.Int J Med Biochem 2020; 3(3): 171-7.
27. Enko D, Wagner H,Kriegshäuser G,Kimbacher C,Stolba R,Halwachs-Baumann G. Assessment of human iron status: A cross-sectional study comparing the clinical utility of different laboratory biomarkers and definitions of iron deficiency in daily practice.Clin Biochem 2015; 48 (13-14): 891-6.