1887

Abstract

Urinalysis culminates in a workload skew within the clinical microbiology laboratory. Routine processing involves screening via manual microscopy or biochemical dipstick measurement, followed by culture for each sample. Despite this, as many as 80 % of specimens are reported as negative; thus, there is vast wastage of resources and time, as well as delayed turnaround time of results as numerous negative cultures fulfil their required incubation time. Automation provides the potential for streamlining sample screening by efficiently (>30 % sample exclusion) and reliably [negative predictive value (NPV) ≥ 95 %] ruling out those likely to be negative, whilst also reducing resource usage and hands-on time. The present study explored this idea by using the sediMAX automated microscopy urinalysis platform. We prospectively collected and processed 1411 non-selected samples directly after routine laboratory processing. The results from this study showed multiple optimum cut-off values for microscopy. However, although optimum cut-off values permitted rule-out of 40.1 % of specimens, an associated 87.5 % NPV was lower than the acceptable limit of 95 %. Sensitivity and specificity of leukocytes and bacteria in determining urinary tract infection was assessed by receiver operator characteristic curves with area under the curve values found to be 0.697 [95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.665–0.729] and 0.587 (95 % CI: 0.551–0.623), respectively. We suggested that the sediMAX was not suitable for use as a rule-out screen prior to culture and further validation work must be carried out before routine use of the analyser.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000064
2015-06-01
2020-01-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/64/6/605.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000064&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Brilha S., Proença H., Cristino J. M., Hänscheid T.. ( 2010;). Use of flow cytometry (Sysmex UF-100) to screen for positive urine cultures: in search for the ideal cut-off. . Clin Chem Lab Med 48:, 289–292 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Broeren M. A. C., Bahçeci S., Vader H. L., Arents N. L. A.. ( 2011;). Screening for urinary tract infection with the Sysmex UF-1000i urine flow cytometer. . J Clin Microbiol 49:, 1025–1029 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  3. De Rosa R., Grosso S., Bruschetta G., Avolio M., Stano P., Modolo M. L., Camporese A.. ( 2010;). Evaluation of the Sysmex UF1000i flow cytometer for ruling out bacterial urinary tract infection. . Clin Chim Acta 411:, 1137–1142 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Falbo R., Sala M. R., Signorelli S., Venturi N., Signorini S., Brambilla P.. ( 2012;). Bacteriuria screening by automated whole-field-image-based microscopy reduces the number of necessary urine cultures. . J Clin Microbiol 50:, 1427–1429 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Karakukcu C., Kayman T., Ozturk A., Torun Y. A.. ( 2012;). Analytic performance of bacteriuria and leukocyturia obtained by UriSed in culture positive urinary tract infections. . Clin Lab 58:, 107–111 [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kellogg J. A., Manzella J. P., Shaffer S. N., Schwartz B. B.. ( 1987;). Clinical relevance of culture versus screens for the detection of microbial pathogens in urine specimens. . Am J Med 83:, 739–745 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kim S. Y., Kim Y. J., Lee S. M., Hwang S. H., Kim H. H., Son H. C., Lee E. Y.. ( 2007;). Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-100 urine cell analyzer as a screening test to reduce the need for urine cultures for community-acquired urinary tract infection. . Am J Clin Pathol 128:, 922–925 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Koken T., Aktepe O. C., Serteser M., Samli M., Kahraman A., Dogan N.. ( 2002;). Determination of cut-off values for leucocytes and bacteria for urine flow cytometer (UF-100) in urinary tract infections. . Int Urol Nephrol 34:, 175–178 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lammers R. L., Gibson S., Kovacs D., Sears W., Strachan G.. ( 2001;). Comparison of test characteristics of urine dipstick and urinalysis at various test cutoff points. . Ann Emerg Med 38:, 505–512 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Manoni F., Valverde S., Antico F., Salvadego M. M., Giacomini A., Gessoni G.. ( 2002;). Field evaluation of a second-generation cytometer UF-100 in diagnosis of acute urinary tract infections in adult patients. . Clin Microbiol Infect 8:, 662–668 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Okada H., Sakai Y., Miyazaki S., Arakawa S., Hamaguchi Y., Kamidono S.. ( 2000;). Detection of significant bacteriuria by automated urinalysis using flow cytometry. . J Clin Microbiol 38:, 2870–2872 [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Parta M., Hudson B. Y., Le T. P., Ittmann M., Musher D. M., Stager C.. ( 2013;). IRIS iQ200 workstation as a screen for performing urine culture. . Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 75:, 5–8 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Sultana R. V., Zalstein S., Cameron P., Campbell D.. ( 2001;). Dipstick urinalysis and the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of urinary tract infection. . J Emerg Med 20:, 13–19 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Zaman Z., Fogazzi G. B., Garigali G., Croci M. D., Bayer G., Kránicz T.. ( 2010;). Urine sediment analysis: analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX – a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser. . Clin Chim Acta 411:, 147–154 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000064
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000064
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error