Urine particles analysis: Performance evaluation of Sysmex UF-1000i and comparison among urine flow cytometer, dipstick, and visual microscopic examination

References

• Budak Yu, Huysal K. Comparison of three automated systems for urine chemistry and urine sediment analysis. Annual Meeting of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Vol. Chicago, IL: American Association for Clinical Chemistry, 2009:A164–5.
   Google Scholar
• Mayo S, Acevedo D, Quinones-Torrelo C, Canos I, Sancho M. Clinical laboratory automated urinalysis: comparison among automated microscopy, flow cytometry, two test strips analyzers, and manual microscopic examination of the urine sediments. J Clin Lab Anal 2008;22:262–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langlois MR, Delanghe JR, Steyaert SR, Everaert KC, De Buyzere ML. Automated flow cytometry compared with an automated dipstick reader for urinalysis. Clin Chem 1999;45:118–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tworek JA, Wilkinson DS, Walsh MK. The rate of manual microscopic examination of urine sediment: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 11,243 urinalysis tests from 88 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008;132:1868–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delanghe JR, Kouri TT, Huber AR, Hannemann-Pohl K, Guder WG, Lun A, Sinha P, Stamminger G, Beier L. The role of automated urine particle flow cytometry in clinical practice. Clin Chim Acta 2000;301:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartolini L, Caldini A, Rapi S, Del Genovese A, Giganti E. Urine sediment analysis: comparison between microscopic evaluation and a fully automated flow cytometric analysis. Eur J Histochem 1997;41(Suppl. 2):93–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kouri TT, Kahkonen U, Malminiemi K, Vuento R, Rowan RM. Evaluation of Sysmex UF-100 urine flow cytometer vs chamber counting of supravitally stained specimens and conventional bacterial cultures. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;112:25–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaman Z, Roggeman S, Verhaegen J. Unsatisfactory performance of flow cytometer UF-100 and urine strips in predicting outcome of urine cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:4169–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roggeman S, Zaman Z. Safely reducing manual urine microscopy analyses by combining urine flow cytometer and strip results. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:872–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lun A, Ziebig R, Priem F, Filler G, Sinha P. Routine workflow for use of urine strips and urine flow cytometer UF-100 in the hospital laboratory. Clin Chem 1999;45:1305–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottiger C, Huber AR. Quantitative urine particle analysis: integrative approach for the optimal combination of automation with UF-100 and microscopic review with KOVA cell chamber. Clin Chem 2003;49:617–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinmetz J, Henny J, Gueguen R. Stepwise strategies in analysing haematuria and leukocyturia in screening. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:464–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenili D, Pirovano B. The automation of sediment urinalysis using a new urine flow cytometer (UF-100). Clin Chem Lab Med 1998;36:909–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan RW, Szeto CC. Advances in the clinical laboratory assessment of urinary sediment. Clin Chim Acta 2004;340:67–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosso S, Bruschetta G, De Rosa R, Avolio M, Camporese A. Improving the efficiency and efficacy of pre-analytical and analytical work-flow of urine cultures with urinary flow cytometry. New Microbiol 2008;31:501–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wayne P. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Routine urinalysis and collection, transportation and preservation of urine specimens: approved guideline. NCCLS document GP 16-A 1995:51.
   Google Scholar
• Cong Y. Recommendations for standard urine sediment analysis. Chin J Clin Lab Sci 2002;25:249–50.
   Google Scholar
• Kouri T, Fogazzi G, Gant V, Hallander H, Hofmann W, Guder W. ECLM European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2000;60:1–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson DA, Statland BE. Automated urinalysis. Clin Lab Med 1988;8:449–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiming CYMJZ. Reference range of urinary formed elements by microscopic quantitation: a survey in Chinese population. Chin J Clin Lab Sci 2006;24:81–4.
   Google Scholar
• Jan S., Krouwer PD. CLSI/NCCLS EP10-A2. Preliminary evaluation of quantitative clinical laboratory methods, approved guideline, 2nd, 2002:56.
   Google Scholar
• Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyodo T, Kumano K, Sakai T. Differential diagnosis between glomerular and nonglomerular hematuria by automated urinary flow cytometer. Kitasato University Kidney Center criteria. Nephron 1999;82:312–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito K, Nozaki T. [Automated analysis on urine formed element by using FCM]. Rinsho Byori 2001;49:847–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Okada H, Sakai Y, Kawabata G, Fujisawa M, Arakawa S, Hamaguchi Y, Kamidono S. Automated urinalysis. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-50. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;115:605–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Ezra J, Bork L, McPherson RA. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-100 automated urinalysis analyzer. Clin Chem 1998;44:92–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannemann-Pohl K, Kampf SC. Automation of urine sediment examination: a comparison of the Sysmex UF-100 automated flow cytometer with routine manual diagnosis (microscopy, test strips, and bacterial culture). Clin Chem Lab Med 1999;37:753–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lun A, Ziebig R, Hammer H, Otting U, Filler G, Sinha P. Reference values for neonates and children for the UF-100 urine flow cytometer. Clin Chem 1999;45:1879–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar