Mahon C R, Smith L A
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.
Clin Lab Sci. 1990 Sep-Oct;3(5):328-32.
Two standardized systems for examining urine sediment, UriSystem and the Kova System, were compared using urines from renal patients, hospitalized patients, and a normal population. Red blood cells and white blood cells were counted with each system and counts were placed into one of three predetermined clinically relevant categories: normal, suspicious, or diagnostic. In addition, cell counts were evaluated to compare how the systems categorized cell counts when dipstick results for blood, nitrite, and leukocyte esterase were negative. Results indicated that the UriSystem placed patient values into a category of higher relevance than the Kova system. When the reagent strip test results were negative, cell counts by the UriSystem were more likely to be in the suspicious category, indicating a possible need for further patient work-up than the counts done by the Kova system. Normal ranges of the microscopic sediment of the urinalysis must be re-evaluated using standardized systems such as those studied.
使用来自肾病患者、住院患者和正常人群的尿液,对两种用于检查尿沉渣的标准化系统UriSystem和Kova系统进行了比较。用每个系统对红细胞和白细胞进行计数,并将计数归入三个预先确定的临床相关类别之一:正常、可疑或诊断性。此外,当尿液试纸条检测血液、亚硝酸盐和白细胞酯酶的结果为阴性时,对细胞计数进行评估,以比较这两种系统如何对细胞计数进行分类。结果表明,与Kova系统相比,UriSystem将患者的值归入相关性更高的类别。当试纸条检测结果为阴性时,UriSystem的细胞计数更有可能处于可疑类别,这表明与Kova系统的计数相比,可能需要对患者进行进一步检查。必须使用诸如本研究中所采用的标准化系统重新评估尿液分析镜检沉渣的正常范围。