Literature DB >> 33815611

Discrepancy in results between dipstick urinalysis and urine sediment microscopy.

Anca Bacârea1, Gyula László Fekete2, Bianca Liana Grigorescu1, Vladimir Constantin Bacârea3.   

Abstract

With the advancement of urine test automation and the large-scale application of quality management policies, the source of the most crucial errors has become the pre-analytical phase. This study is an attempt to compare the results obtained from the examination of urine strips with those obtained by microscopic examination of urinary sediment, highlighting discordant results. This observational study was conducted between February and August 2019 in a private medical laboratory in Mureş County, and 2,600 urine samples were analyzed. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value for leukocytes, nitrites and red blood cells, taking as reference the microscopic examination of urine summary screening. Urine samples were collected from patients who presented to the laboratory. The 2,600 urine samples were analyzed using strips with 10 parameters: glucose, protein, bilirubin, urobilinogen, pH, specific density, red blood cells, nitrite, and leukocytes, and then using the microscope to examine the urinary sediment. We identified a small percentage (1.92%) of inconsistencies from the 2,600 samples of urine, between urinalysis and the microscopic examination and we identified the causes. The most common discordant results were: false-negatives for nitrite (72%), followed by false-positives results for red blood cells (22%), false-negative results for leukocytes (16%), false-negative results for red blood cells (4%) and false-positives for leukocytes (4%). The study confirmed that discrepancies appear despite the proper instruction of patients.
Copyright © 2021, Spandidos Publications.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dipstick urinalysis; discordant results; microscopy; pH; urine sediment

Year:  2021        PMID: 33815611      PMCID: PMC8014952          DOI: 10.3892/etm.2021.9971

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Ther Med        ISSN: 1792-0981            Impact factor:   2.447


  16 in total

1.  Urinary sediment: still an important diagnostic tool.

Authors:  Giovanni B Fogazzi
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  Influence of Vitamin C on Urine Dipstick Test Results.

Authors:  Dae-Hyun Ko; Tae-Dong Jeong; Sollip Kim; Hee-Jung Chung; Woochang Lee; Sail Chun; Won-Ki Min
Journal:  Ann Clin Lab Sci       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.256

Review 3.  The abnormal urinalysis.

Authors:  Hiren P Patel
Journal:  Pediatr Clin North Am       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.278

4.  Stability of urine specimens stored with and without preservatives at room temperature and on ice prior to urinalysis.

Authors:  Müjgan Ercan; Emiş Deniz Akbulut; Sedat Abuşoğlu; Fatma Meriç Yılmaz; Esra Fırat Oğuz; Canan Topçuoğlu; Volkan Öztekin; Nihal Boğdaycıoğlu
Journal:  Clin Biochem       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 3.281

5.  Accuracy of urine dipstick to predict urinary tract infections in an emergency department.

Authors:  Rifat Rehmani
Journal:  J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad       Date:  2004 Jan-Mar

6.  Ascorbic acid-A black hole of urine chemistry screening.

Authors:  Adriana Unic; Nora Nikolac Gabaj; Marijana Miler; Jelena Culej; Adrijana Lisac; Anita Horvat; Nada Vrkic
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2018-02-25       Impact factor: 2.352

7.  Reliability of dipstick assay in predicting urinary tract infection.

Authors:  Anith Kumar Mambatta; Jayalakshmi Jayarajan; Vinitha L Rashme; Sanchitha Harini; Sujaya Menon; Jayachandran Kuppusamy
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

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

Authors:  Kağan Huysal; Yasemin U Budak; Ayse Ulusoy Karaca; Murat Aydos; Serdar Kahvecioğlu; Mehtap Bulut; Murat Polat
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.313

Review 9.  Preanalytical requirements of urinalysis.

Authors:  Joris Delanghe; Marijn Speeckaert
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 2.313

10.  Sampling of urine for diagnosing urinary tract infection in general practice - First-void or mid-stream urine?

Authors:  Hoelmkjaer Pernille; Bjerrum Lars; Mäkelä Marjukka; Siersma Volkert; Holm Anne
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 2.581

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.