Literature DB >> 10396282

Evaluation of Sysmex UF-100 urine flow cytometer vs chamber counting of supravitally stained specimens and conventional bacterial cultures.

T T Kouri1, U Kähkönen, K Malminiemi, R Vuento, R M Rowan.   

Abstract

We evaluated the Sysmex UF-100 urine flow cytometer (TOA Medical Electronics, Kobe, Japan) with 269 uncentrifuged urine specimens by comparing it with Sternheimer staining and particle counting in 1-microL disposable chambers with both brightfield and phase-contrast microscopy (the reference method). Results of routine test strip analysis, sediment microscopy (182 specimens), and bacterial culture (204 specimens) were also available. Detection of urinary WBCs and RBCs was highly reliable with the UF-100 compared with manual chamber counting (r = .98 and .88, respectively). Identification of bacteria was equal to that with visual microscopy of uncentrifuged specimens; sensitivity was 55%, and specificity 90%, compared with bacterial cultures at a cutoff of > 10(3) colony-forming units per milliliter. Renal damage was difficult to evaluate even with manual methods because of the low counts of renal tubular cells and casts; with standard manual Sternheimer-stained sediment analysis, sensitivity was 65% to 69% and specificity 66% to 91%, compared with the uncentrifuged chamber method at a cutoff of 3 and 10 particles per microliter, respectively. Renal damage was demonstrated with the UF-100 with a sensitivity of 26% to 69% and specificity 92% to 94%, compared with chamber counts. Automated urinalysis with the UF-100 urine flow cytometer offers considerable savings in time and labor. When high sensitivity is needed, visual microscopic review should be performed to detect renal disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10396282     DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/112.1.25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0002-9173            Impact factor:   2.493


  8 in total

1.  Unsatisfactory performance of flow cytometer UF-100 and urine strips in predicting outcome of urine cultures.

Authors:  Z Zaman; S Roggeman; J Verhaegen
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Performance of urinary flow cytometry in predicting outcome of urine cultures.

Authors:  Joris R Delanghe; Michel R Langlois; Birgitte Wuyts; Marc L De Buyzere
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Determination of cut-off values for leucocytes and bacteria for urine flow cytometer (UF-100) in urinary tract infections.

Authors:  Tulay Koken; Orhan C Aktepe; Mustafa Serteser; Murat Samli; Ahmet Kahraman; Nurhan Dogan
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  New generation IQ-200 automated urine microscopy analyzer compared with KOVA cell chamber.

Authors:  Emel Altekin; Ozgur Kadiçesme; Pinar Akan; Tuncay Kume; Ozgul Vupa; Gul Ergor; Hakan Abacioglu
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.352

5.  Clinical laboratory automated urinalysis: comparison among automated microscopy, flow cytometry, two test strips analyzers, and manual microscopic examination of the urine sediments.

Authors:  S Mayo; D Acevedo; C Quiñones-Torrelo; I Canós; M Sancho
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.352

Review 6.  Applications of flow cytometry to clinical microbiology.

Authors:  A Alvarez-Barrientos; J Arroyo; R Cantón; C Nombela; M Sánchez-Pérez
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 7.  Urinalysis and urinary tract infection: update for clinicians.

Authors:  J L Young; D E Soper
Journal:  Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001

8.  Dual-Purpose Photometric-Conductivity Detector for Simultaneous and Sequential Measurements in Flow Analysis.

Authors:  Thitirat Mantim; Korbua Chaisiwamongkhol; Kanchana Uraisin; Peter C Hauser; Prapin Wilairat; Duangjai Nacapricha
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 4.411

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.