Literature DB >> 24693995

Cutoff values for bacteria and leukocytes for urine sediment analyzer FUS200 in culture-positive urinary-tract infections.

Derya Kocer1, Fatma M Sarıguzel, Cıgdem Karakukcu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The microscopic analysis of urine is essential for the diagnosis of patients with urinary tract infections. Quantitative urine culture is the 'gold standard' method for definitive diagnosis of urinary-tract infections, but it is labor-intensive, time consuming, and does not provide the same-day results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical and diagnostic performance of the FUS200 (Changchun Dirui Industry, China), a new urine sedimentation analyzer in comparison to urine culture as the reference method.
METHODS: We evaluated 1000 urine samples, submitted for culture and urine analysis with a preliminary diagnosis of urinary-tract infection. Cut-off values for the FUS200 were determined by comparing the results with urine cultures. The cut-off values by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve technique, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for bacteria and white blood cells (WBCs).
RESULTS: Among the 1000 urine specimens submitted for culture, 637 cultures (63.7%) were negative, and 363 were (36.3%) positive. The best cut-off values obtained from ROC analysis were 16/μL for bacteriuria (sensitivity: 82.3%, specificity: 58%), and 34/μL for WBCs (sensitivity: 72.3%, specificity: 65.2%). The area under the curve (AUC) for the bacteria and WBCs count were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67-0.74) and, 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69-0.76) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The most important requirement of a rapid diagnostic screening test is sensitivity, and, in this perspective, an unsatisfactory sensitivity by using bacteria recognition and quantification performed by the FUS200 analyzer has been observed. After further technical improvements in particle recognition and laboratory personnel training, the FUS200 might show better results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FUS200; analytic performance; urinalysis; urine culture

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24693995     DOI: 10.3109/00365513.2014.900189

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest        ISSN: 0036-5513            Impact factor:   1.713


  4 in total

Review 1.  Progress in Automated Urinalysis.

Authors:  Matthijs Oyaert; Joris Delanghe
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 3.464

2.  A comparison of automated urine analyzers cobas 6500, UN 3000-111b and iRICELL 3000 with manual microscopic urinalysis.

Authors:  Piraya Tantisaranon; Kanyarat Dumkengkhachornwong; Peechana Aiadsakun; Areerat Hnoonual
Journal:  Pract Lab Med       Date:  2021-01-18

3.  The comparison of automated urine analyzers with manual microscopic examination for urinalysis automated urine analyzers and manual urinalysis.

Authors:  Fatma Demet İnce; Hamit Yaşar Ellidağ; Mehmet Koseoğlu; Neşe Şimşek; Hülya Yalçın; Mustafa Osman Zengin
Journal:  Pract Lab Med       Date:  2016-03-11

Review 4.  Urinary tract infection in pediatrics: an overview.

Authors:  Ana Cristina Simões E Silva; Eduardo A Oliveira; Robert H Mak
Journal:  J Pediatr (Rio J)       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 2.990

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.