A comparison of automated urine analyzers cobas 6500, UN 3000-111b and iRICELL 3000 with manual microscopic urinalysis.

OBJECTIVES

Microscopic examination is essential in urine analysis. This is a simple way to collect informative data but it is also labor-intensive, time-consuming, and requires experienced staff for accurate results and interpretation. Several automated urine analyzers have been introduced for urine analysis in medical laboratories. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the performance of the most common three automated urine analyzers, Cobas 6500, UN3000-111b and iRICELL 3000.

DESIGN

and Methods: A total of 100 routine urine samples were used in the study. Results from the three machines were compared with the routine procedure results including physical, chemical and sediment analysis.

RESULTS

There was good correlation of urine physical and chemical analyses between the three analyzers with an overall concordance level of more than 80%. For sediment analysis, the degree of concordance between manual analysis and the three instruments was very good to good for white blood cells, red blood cells and epithelial cells, and moderate for bacteria. There were fair to good agreements between manual microscopy and the three instruments, Cobas 6500, UN3000-111b and iRICELL 3000, for casts (Cohen's kappa 0.42, 0.38 and 0.62, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The three automated urine analyzers showed similar performances and good correlation with manual microscopy. The results of this study indicate that automated urine analyzers could be used for initial urine testing to reduce high workloads and to save time, but manual microscopic analysis by experienced staff is still necessary to classify urine sediments for confirmation, especially in pathologic specimens.