Article

Diagnostic accuracy of uriSed automated urine microscopic sediment analyzer and dipstick parameters in predicting urine culture test results.

Department of Clinical Laboratory, Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Bursa, Turkey.
Biochemia Medica (Impact Factor: 2.4). 01/2013; 23(2):211-7. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2013.025
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common types of infection. Currently, diagnosis is primarily based on microbiologic culture, which is time- and labor-consuming. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of urinalysis results from UriSed (77 Electronica, Budapest, Hungary), an automated microscopic image-based sediment analyzer, in predicting positive urine cultures.
We examined a total of 384 urine specimens from hospitalized patients and outpatients attending our hospital on the same day for urinalysis, dipstick tests and semi-quantitative urine culture. The urinalysis results were compared with those of conventional semiquantitative urine culture.
Of 384 urinary specimens, 68 were positive for bacteriuria by culture, and were thus considered true positives. Comparison of these results with those obtained from the UriSed analyzer indicated that the analyzer had a specificity of 91.1%, a sensitivity of 47.0%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 53.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 40.8-65.3), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 88.8% (95% CI = 85.0-91.8%). The accuracy was 83.3% when the urine leukocyte parameter was used, 76.8% when bacteriuria analysis of urinary sediment was used, and 85.1% when the bacteriuria and leukocyturia parameters were combined. The presence of nitrite was the best indicator of culture positivity (99.3% specificity) but had a negative likelihood ratio of 0.7, indicating that it was not a reliable clinical test.
Although the specificity of the UriSed analyzer was within acceptable limits, the sensitivity value was low. Thus, UriSed urinalysis resuIts do not accurately predict the outcome of culture.

1 Bookmark
 · 
81 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: proven their feasibility in medical laboratories. However, editing manual microscopic review of some specimens severely limits the usefulness of such systems. This study aims to give feedback on the practical experience on »Yeast«, which is one of the parameters that compel frequent manual reviews. 5448 freshly collected urine specimens submitted from various departments of our hospital for diagnostic urinalysis were studied by the UriSed® (77 Elektronika, Hungary). A specialist medical doctor inspected every image on-board, and reviewed the ones with a »Yeast« alarm by traditional manual microscopy. UriSed alarmed in 491 samples (9%) for yeast. In 59 samples (1%) the number of particles exceeded the cut-off and a »positive for yeast« was set. A false positive report of yeast +1 to 3+/HPF was found in 51 samples (0.9%). There were 8 cases with positive for yeast from both microscopic methods. Thirty-three »negative for yeast« samples were corrected as positive after the manual microscopic review. We report a high percentage of false positives and negatives in the yeast parameter, in line with other studies on UriSed as well as on other instruments in the market. As an important feedback, our observations showed that the major concern in false results was »the focusing problem«. We believe in the necessity of a focus check and comparison of alarms between images on board.
    07/2014;

Full-text

Download
8 Downloads
Available from
Oct 4, 2014