Bacârea Anca, Fekete Gyula László, Grigorescu Bianca Liana, Bacârea Vladimir Constantin
Department of Pathophysiology, Dermatology Clinic, 'George Emil Palade' University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania.
Department of Dermatology, Dermatology Clinic, 'George Emil Palade' University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania.
Exp Ther Med. 2021 May;21(5):538. doi: 10.3892/etm.2021.9971. Epub 2021 Mar 23.
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.
随着尿液检测自动化的发展以及质量管理政策的大规模应用,最关键错误的来源已成为分析前阶段。本研究旨在比较尿试纸检测结果与尿沉渣显微镜检查结果,突出不一致的结果。这项观察性研究于2019年2月至8月在穆列什县的一家私立医学实验室进行,共分析了2600份尿液样本。我们以尿液综合筛查的显微镜检查为参考,计算了白细胞、亚硝酸盐和红细胞的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。尿液样本取自前来实验室就诊的患者。对2600份尿液样本使用具有10项参数的试纸进行分析:葡萄糖、蛋白质、胆红素、尿胆原、pH值、比重、红细胞、亚硝酸盐和白细胞,然后用显微镜检查尿沉渣。我们在2600份尿液样本中发现了尿分析与显微镜检查之间存在小比例(1.92%)的不一致情况,并确定了原因。最常见的不一致结果为:亚硝酸盐假阴性(72%),其次是红细胞假阳性(22%)、白细胞假阴性(16%)、红细胞假阴性(4%)和白细胞假阳性(4%)。该研究证实,尽管对患者进行了适当指导,但仍会出现差异。