Muhammed Mert SONKAYA, Özlem ÜNAY DEMİREL

Comparison of sysmex UF-5000 flow cytometer and fuchs-rosenthal chamber urine sediment analysis

Urine analysis is a routine test performed in clinical practice. Urine sediment analysis is a part of urinalysis that provides precious information to laboratory professionals. Manual review is an application which is time-consuming, as it is the gold standard for analysis. In this study, it was aimed to compare urine sediment analysis performance of the Sysmex UF-5000 flow cytometer with the manual Fuchs-Rosenthal counting chamber. From outpatient clinics, a total of 127 fresh urine samples were analyzed. Sysmex UF-5000 fluorescence flow cytometer was used for urine analysis and Fuchs-Rosenthal counting chamber was used for urine sediment analysis. Two methods were compared using Pearson correlation coefficient (r), Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plot. CLSI Statis-Pro software version 3.0, Microsoft Excel 2010 and Analyse-it software version 3.80 (Analyse-it Software, Ltd., Leeds, UK) were used. A good correlation was observed between automated and manual white blood cell (WBC) counts in 71 urine samples (r = 0.988; y = 1.162x + 0.489; n = 127). The UF-5000 showed a significant proportional overestimation with the Passing-Bablok regression (95% CI slope: 1.110 to 1.226). Correlation between the counting chamber and UF-5000 was observed in 77 samples for red blood cell (RBC) counts (r=0.996; y=1.1x+0.75). This study showed that flow cytometry urinalysis is a promising area compared to the manual reference method. Urine analyzer automation is commonly used in clinical laboratories all over the world and is effective in reducing report time and workload.

PDF

___

1. Winkel P, Statland BE, Jørgensen K. Urine Microscopy, an III-Defined Method, Examined by a Multifactorial Technique. Clin Chem. 1974;20:436– 9.
2. Khejonnit V, Pratumvinit B, Reesukumal K, et al. Optimal criteria for microscopic review of urinalysis following use of automated urine analyzer. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2015;439:1–4.
3. Kouri T, Gyory A, Rowan RM, ISLH Urinalysis Task Force. ISLH recommended reference procedure for the enumeration of particles in urine. Lab Hematol. 2003;9:58–63.
4. Chien T-I, Kao J-T, Liu H-L, et al. Urine sediment examination: A comparison of automated urinalysis systems and manual microscopy. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2007;384:28–34.
5. Du J, Xu J, Wang F, et al. Establishment and development of the personalized criteria for microscopic review following multiple automated routine urinalysis systems. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2015;444:221–8.
6. European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine. European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 2000;231:1–86.
7. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 8;1:307–10.
8. Bablok W, Passing H. Application of statistical procedures in analytical instrument testing. J Automat Chem. 1985;7:74–9.
9. Owens CL, VandenBussche CJ, Burroughs FH, et al. A review of reporting systems and terminology for urine cytology: Urine Cytology Reporting and Terminology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:9–14.
10. Fenili D, Pirovano B. The Automation of Sediment Urinalysis Using a New Urine Flow Cytometer (UF-100TM). Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine [Internet]. 1998 Jan 5 [cited 2022 Jan 21];36(12). Available from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/CCLM.1998.158/html
11. Langlois MR, Delanghe JR, Steyaert SR, et al. Automated flow cytometry compared with an automated dipstick reader for urinalysis. Clin Chem. 1999;45:118–22.
12. Hannemann-Pohl K, Kampf SC. Automation of Urine Sediment Examination: a Comparison of the Sysmex UF-100 Automated Flow Cytometer with Routine Manual Diagnosis (Microscopy, Test Strips, and Bacterial Culture). Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine [Internet]. 1999 Jan 1 [cited 2022 Jan 21];37(7). Available from: https://www. degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/CCLM.1999.116/html
13. Ince FD, Ellidag HY, Koseoglu M, et al. The comparison of automated urine analyzers with manual microscopic examination for urinalysis automated urine analyzers and manual urinalysis. Pract Lab Med. 2016;5:14–20.
14. Previtali G, Ravasio R, Seghezzi M, et al. Performance evaluation of the new fully automated urine particle analyser UF-5000 compared to the reference method of the Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2017;472:123–30.
15. De Rosa R, Grosso S, Lorenzi G, et al. Evaluation of the new Sysmex UF- 5000 fluorescence flow cytometry analyser for ruling out bacterial urinary tract infection and for prediction of Gram negative bacteria in urine cultures. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2018;484:171–8.
16. Ippoliti R, Allievi I, Rocchetti A. UF‐5000 flow cytometer: A new technology to support microbiologists’ interpretation of suspected urinary tract infections. MicrobiologyOpen [Internet]. 2020 Mar [cited 2022 Jan 21];9(3). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ mbo3.987
17. Seghezzi M, Manenti B, Previtali G, et al. Preliminary evaluation of UF- 5000 Body Fluid Mode for automated cerebrospinal fluid cell counting. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2017;473:133–8.
18. Shayanfar N, Tobler U, von Eckardstein A, et al. 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. Clinical Chemical Laboratory Medicine [Internet]. 2007 Jan 1 [cited 2022 Jan 21];45(9). Available from: https://www.degruyter. com/document/doi/10.1515/CCLM.2007.503/html
19. Wesarachkitti B, Khejonnit V, Pratumvinit B, et al. Performance Evaluation and Comparison of the Fully Automated Urinalysis Analyzers UX-2000 and Cobas 6500. Lab Med. 2016;47:124–33.
20. Lee W, Ha J-S, Ryoo N-H. Comparison of the Automated cobas u 701 Urine Microscopy and UF-1000i Flow Cytometry Systems and Manual Microscopy in the Examination of Urine Sediments: Comparison of cobas u 701 and UF-1000i. J Clin Lab Anal. 2016;30:663–71.