Literature DB >> 27069030

Performance Evaluation and Comparison of the Fully Automated Urinalysis Analyzers UX-2000 and Cobas 6500.

Bongkot Wesarachkitti1, Varanya Khejonnit1, Busadee Pratumvinit1, Kanit Reesukumal1, Suriya Meepanya1, Chanutchaya Pattanavin1, Preechaya Wongkrajang2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the performances of the automated urinalysis devices UX-2000 and Cobas 6500.
METHOD: A total of 258 urine specimens were collected from the routine specimen workload. We analyzed all specimens on both automated instruments and recorded the turnaround time from each method. Physical, chemical, and sedimentary urine components were compared between the automated and the manual method for each analyzer.
RESULTS: The correlation of urine physical/chemical properties between the 2 instruments was excellent. The Cobas 6500 instrument demonstrated a higher level of agreement for red blood cells (Cobas 6500:R= 0.94; UX-2000:R= 0.78) and white blood cells (Cobas 6500:R= 0.95; UX-2000:R= 0.85). The UX-2000 demonstrated higher sensitivity for small round cells, hyaline casts, pathological casts, and bacteria. The median turnaround time was 1.5 minutes and 8.5 minutes for the Cobas 6500 and UX-2000, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The 2 devices showed similar performance in technical evaluation; they each reduce workload and increase time saving. However, manual examination by technicians is recommended for pathological specimens. © American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2016. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cobas 6500; Sysmex UX-2000; automated urine analyzer; instrumentation; manual urinalysis; urinalysis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27069030     DOI: 10.1093/labmed/lmw002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lab Med        ISSN: 0007-5027


  8 in total

1.  UriSed 3 and UX-2000 automated urine sediment analyzers vs manual microscopic method: A comparative performance analysis.

Authors:  Sathima Laiwejpithaya; Preechaya Wongkrajang; Kanit Reesukumal; Chonticha Bucha; Suriya Meepanya; Chanutchaya Pattanavin; Varanya Khejonnit; Achara Chuntarut
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 2.352

2.  Evaluation of the analytical performances of Cobas 6500 and Sysmex UN series automated urinalysis systems with manual microscopic particle counting.

Authors:  Ebubekir Bakan; Zafer Bayraktutan; Nurcan Kilic Baygutalp; Mehmet Ali Gul; Fatma Zuhal Umudum; Nuri Bakan
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.313

Review 3.  Progress in Automated Urinalysis.

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

4.  Automated urinalysis combining physicochemical analysis, on-board centrifugation, and digital imaging in one system: A multicenter performance evaluation of the cobas 6500 urine work area.

Authors:  Christa M Cobbaert; Figen Arslan; Imma Caballé Martín; Antoni Alsius Serra; Ester Picó-Plana; Víctor Sánchez-Margalet; Antonio Carmona-Fernández; John Burden; André Ziegler; Walter Bechel
Journal:  Pract Lab Med       Date:  2019-09-19

5.  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

6.  Prediction of urine culture results by automated urinalysis with digital flow morphology analysis.

Authors:  Dokyun Kim; Seoung Chul Oh; Changseung Liu; Yoonjung Kim; Yongjung Park; Seok Hoon Jeong
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  LX-8000R and UriSed 2 fully automated urine analyzers comparison to manual microscopic examination.

Authors:  Canpolat Erkan Revşa Evin; Özgür Aslan
Journal:  J Med Biochem       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  The development and validation of different decision-making tools to predict urine culture growth out of urine flow cytometry parameter.

Authors:  Martin Müller; Ruth Seidenberg; Sabine K Schuh; Aristomenis K Exadaktylos; Clyde B Schechter; Alexander B Leichtle; Wolf E Hautz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.