Suppr超能文献

肾病科医生与医院临床实验室进行的尿液分析比较及解读。

Comparison and interpretation of urinalysis performed by a nephrologist versus a hospital-based clinical laboratory.

作者信息

Tsai Jason J, Yeun Jane Y, Kumar Victoria A, Don Burl R

机构信息

Division of Nephrology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.

出版信息

Am J Kidney Dis. 2005 Nov;46(5):820-9. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.07.039.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Urinalysis (UA) is considered the most important laboratory test in evaluating patients with kidney disease. Anecdotally, we have observed differences between results of UA performed by nephrologists compared with those performed by certified medical technologists or clinical laboratory scientists that could affect a clinician's diagnosis. Whether there are differences between UA performed by the clinical laboratory and that performed by a nephrologist was determined, and accuracy of diagnosis based on interpretation of the UA was compared.

METHODS

Urine samples were obtained from 26 patients with acute renal failure (ARF). An aliquot of urine was sent to the clinical laboratory for UA. Nephrologist A, blinded to the patient's clinical information, performed a UA on the other aliquot of urine, generated a report, and assigned the most likely diagnosis for ARF based on UA findings. Nephrologist B, also blinded to the clinical information, reviewed nephrologist A's UA reports and assigned a diagnosis for ARF to each report. Nephrologists A and B both assigned a diagnosis (or diagnoses) for the ARF based on laboratory UA results. These 4 sets of diagnoses were compared with those assigned by the consult nephrologists.

RESULTS

Nephrologist A correctly diagnosed the cause of ARF in 24 of 26 samples (92.3% success rate) based on his performance of the UA. Diagnoses by nephrologists A and B, based on their review of the clinical laboratory UA report, were correct in only 23.1% and 19.2% of the samples, respectively. Accuracy of diagnosis for nephrologist B improved to 69.3% when she reviewed UA reports from nephrologist A. Nephrologist A's review of urine sediment was significantly more accurate than interpretations by nephrologist A or B of clinical laboratory reports (sign test, P < 0.001). Nephrologist A reported a greater number of renal tubular epithelial (RTE) cells (P < 0.0001), granular casts (P = 0.0017), hyaline casts (P = 0.0233), RTE casts (P = 0.0008), and dysmorphic red blood cells. The laboratory noted a greater number of squamous cells (P = 0.0034).

CONCLUSION

A nephrologist is more likely to recognize the presence of RTE cells, granular casts, RTE casts, and dysmorphic red blood cells in urine. The laboratory may be reporting RTE cells incorrectly as squamous epithelial cells. Nephrologist-performed UA is superior to laboratory-performed UA in determining the correct diagnosis.

摘要

背景

尿液分析(UA)被认为是评估肾病患者最重要的实验室检查。据我们观察,肾病科医生进行的UA结果与认证医学技术人员或临床实验室科学家进行的结果之间存在差异,这可能会影响临床医生的诊断。本研究旨在确定临床实验室进行的UA与肾病科医生进行的UA之间是否存在差异,并比较基于UA解读的诊断准确性。

方法

从26例急性肾衰竭(ARF)患者中获取尿液样本。将一份尿液样本送至临床实验室进行UA检测。肾病科医生A在对患者临床信息不知情的情况下,对另一份尿液样本进行UA检测,生成报告,并根据UA结果为ARF确定最可能的诊断。肾病科医生B同样对临床信息不知情,审查肾病科医生A的UA报告,并为每份报告确定ARF的诊断。肾病科医生A和B均根据实验室UA结果为ARF确定诊断(或多个诊断)。将这四组诊断结果与会诊肾病科医生给出的诊断结果进行比较。

结果

基于其UA检测结果,肾病科医生A在26份样本中的24份(成功率92.3%)中正确诊断出ARF的病因。基于对临床实验室UA报告的审查,肾病科医生A和B的诊断分别仅在23.1%和19.2%的样本中正确。当肾病科医生B审查肾病科医生A的UA报告时,其诊断准确性提高到69.3%。肾病科医生A对尿沉渣的审查明显比肾病科医生A或B对临床实验室报告的解读更准确(符号检验,P<0.001)。肾病科医生A报告的肾小管上皮(RTE)细胞数量更多(P<0.0001)、颗粒管型更多(P=0.0017)、透明管型更多(P=0.0233)、RTE管型更多(P=0.0008)以及畸形红细胞更多。实验室报告的鳞状细胞数量更多(P=0.0034)。

结论

肾病科医生更有可能识别出尿液中RTE细胞、颗粒管型、RTE管型和畸形红细胞的存在。实验室可能将RTE细胞错误报告为鳞状上皮细胞。在确定正确诊断方面,肾病科医生进行的UA优于实验室进行的UA。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验