Suppr超能文献

UriSed 自动化尿液有形成分分析仪和尿试纸参数对预测尿液培养试验结果的诊断准确性。

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

机构信息

Department of Clinical Laboratory, Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Bursa, Turkey.

出版信息

Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2013;23(2):211-7. doi: 10.11613/bm.2013.025.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common types of infection. Currently, diagnosis is primarily based on microbiologic culture, which is time- and labor-consuming. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of urinalysis results from UriSed (77 Electronica, Budapest, Hungary), an automated microscopic image-based sediment analyzer, in predicting positive urine cultures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined a total of 384 urine specimens from hospitalized patients and outpatients attending our hospital on the same day for urinalysis, dipstick tests and semi-quantitative urine culture. The urinalysis results were compared with those of conventional semiquantitative urine culture.

RESULTS

Of 384 urinary specimens, 68 were positive for bacteriuria by culture, and were thus considered true positives. Comparison of these results with those obtained from the UriSed analyzer indicated that the analyzer had a specificity of 91.1%, a sensitivity of 47.0%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 53.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 40.8-65.3), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 88.8% (95% CI = 85.0-91.8%). The accuracy was 83.3% when the urine leukocyte parameter was used, 76.8% when bacteriuria analysis of urinary sediment was used, and 85.1% when the bacteriuria and leukocyturia parameters were combined. The presence of nitrite was the best indicator of culture positivity (99.3% specificity) but had a negative likelihood ratio of 0.7, indicating that it was not a reliable clinical test.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the specificity of the UriSed analyzer was within acceptable limits, the sensitivity value was low. Thus, UriSed urinalysis resuIts do not accurately predict the outcome of culture.

摘要

介绍

尿路感染(UTI)是最常见的感染类型之一。目前,诊断主要基于微生物培养,这既费时又费力。本研究旨在评估 UriSed(匈牙利布达佩斯 77 电子公司)的尿液分析结果在预测阳性尿液培养方面的诊断准确性,UriSed 是一种基于自动化显微镜图像的沉淀分析仪。

材料和方法

我们检查了 384 份来自住院患者和当天在我院就诊的门诊患者的尿液标本,进行尿液分析、干化学试带检测和半定量尿液培养。将尿液分析结果与常规半定量尿液培养进行比较。

结果

384 份尿液标本中,有 68 份培养出细菌尿,被认为是真正的阳性。将这些结果与 UriSed 分析仪的结果进行比较,结果显示该分析仪的特异性为 91.1%,敏感性为 47.0%,阳性预测值(PPV)为 53.3%(95%置信区间(CI)=40.8-65.3),阴性预测值(NPV)为 88.8%(95%CI=85.0-91.8%)。当使用尿液白细胞参数时,准确性为 83.3%,当使用尿液沉淀中的细菌尿分析时,准确性为 76.8%,当将细菌尿和白细胞尿参数结合使用时,准确性为 85.1%。亚硝酸盐的存在是培养阳性的最佳指标(特异性为 99.3%),但阴性似然比为 0.7,表明这不是一种可靠的临床检测。

结论

虽然 UriSed 分析仪的特异性在可接受的范围内,但敏感性值较低。因此,UriSed 尿液分析结果不能准确预测培养结果。

相似文献

3
UriSed as a screening tool for presumptive diagnosis of urinary tract infection.UriSed 作为疑似尿路感染的筛查工具。
Clin Chim Acta. 2013 Oct 21;425:77-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2013.07.020. Epub 2013 Jul 29.
4
Can routine automated urinalysis reduce culture requests?常规自动化尿液分析能否减少培养物的需求?
Clin Biochem. 2013 Sep;46(13-14):1285-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.06.015. Epub 2013 Jun 25.

引用本文的文献

8
Reliability of dipstick assay in predicting urinary tract infection.试纸检测法预测尿路感染的可靠性。
J Family Med Prim Care. 2015 Apr-Jun;4(2):265-8. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.154672.

本文引用的文献

2
IRIS iQ200 workstation as a screen for performing urine culture.将 IRIS iQ200 工作站用作进行尿液培养的屏幕。
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013 Jan;75(1):5-8. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.08.026. Epub 2012 Oct 24.
8
The epidemiology of urinary tract infection.尿路感染的流行病学。
Nat Rev Urol. 2010 Dec;7(12):653-60. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.190.
10
Mechanisms of drug-induced nephrotoxicity.药物性肾毒性的机制。
Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2010(196):111-30. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-00663-0_5.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验