Journals / Çukurova Anestezi ve Cerrahi Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3

The Analytical Performance of an Automated Urine Analyzer - Iriscell IQ200

Otomatik İdrar Analiz Cihazı Iriscell IQ200'ün Analitik Performansı

Didem Akal Taşcıoğlu(ISTINYE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE)0000-0003-4163-7908
Müge Kanmaz Özer(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İSTANBUL OKMEYDANI HEALTH RESEARCH CENTER)0009-0004-2368-852X
Beyhan Ömer(Istanbul Health and Technology University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biochemistry)0000-0001-7938-6281
Ahmet Dirican(Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biostatistics)0000-0001-8454-4547
Nilgün Sema Genç(Istanbul Health and Technology University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biochemistry)0000-0002-2577-9263
Haluk Eraksoy(Istanbul University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Disease and Clinical Microbiology)0000-0002-5790-0806
Pages
827–832
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It provides some advantages by improving the reliability of urinalysis such as the standardization of results, the precision of direct examination, and transferring data directly to LIS.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of urine parameters recorded by the analyzer and compare them with urine culture results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Fresh urine samples were collected from 437 consecutive in- and out-patients (263 women and 174 men) and analyzed within an hour using the Iris IQ200.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It provides some advantages by improving the reliability of urinalysis such as the standardization of results, the precision of direct examination, and transferring data directly to LIS.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:437 samples
⚙️Variables:Iris IQ200 · idrar kültürleri · otomatik kimyasal analiz

Abstract

Aim: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of urine parameters recorded by the analyzer and compare them with urine culture results. Methods: The study was undertaken in the clinical laboratory of XXXXX University, XXXX Faculty of Medicine. Fresh urine samples were collected from 437 consecutive in- and out-patients (263 women and 174 men) and analyzed within an hour using the Iris IQ200. For each sample, automatized chemical analysis (dipstick) and sediment analysis were performed. Results: During the study period, 437 consecutive urine samples were investigated. The analyzed urine samples were from 263 females and 174 males aged between 1 and 89 years (average age: 47.5 years). Forty-eight contaminated urine samples were excluded from the study. Urine culture was positive in 109 patients. Out of the 437 samples analyzed with IQ200 Elite, 217 (49.6%) passed the predefined threshold values (WBCs, leucocyte esterase, bacteria, ASP) for UTI and were redirected for urine culture study. Of these samples, only 83 (38.2%) were positive in the urine culture. A total of 172 samples had values below the threshold and were considered negative. However, the percentage of false negatives was 20%. Conclusion: Iris IQ200 is a very effective screening instrument for urine cultures. It provides some advantages by improving the reliability of urinalysis such as the standardization of results, the precision of direct examination, and transferring data directly to LIS.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, analiz cihazı tarafından kaydedilen idrar parametrelerinin analitik performansını değerlendirmeyi ve bunları idrar kültürü sonuçlarıyla karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Yöntem: Çalışma, XXXXX Üniversitesi, XXXX Tıp Fakültesi klinik laboratuvarında gerçekleştirildi. 437 ardışık yatan ve ayakta tedavi gören hastadan (263 kadın ve 174 erkek) taze idrar örnekleri toplandı ve bir saat içinde Iris IQ200 kullanılarak analiz edildi. Her örnek için otomatik kimyasal analiz (çubuk testi) ve sediment analizi yapıldı. Bulgular: Çalışma süresi boyunca 437 ardışık idrar örneği incelendi. Analiz edilen idrar örnekleri, 1 ile 89 yaşları arasında (ortalama yaş: 47,5 yıl) 263 kadın ve 174 erkekten alındı. Kırk sekiz kontamine idrar örneği çalışmadan çıkarıldı. İdrar kültürü 109 hastada pozitifti. IQ200 Elite ile analiz edilen 437 örneğin 217'si (%49,6) idrar yolu enfeksiyonu için önceden tanımlanmış eşik değerlerini (beyaz kan hücreleri, lökosit esteraz, bakteri, ASP) geçti ve idrar kültürü incelemesi için yeniden yönlendirildi. Bu örneklerin sadece 83'ü (%38,2) idrar kültüründe pozitifti. Toplam 172 örnek eşik değerinin altında değerlere sahipti ve negatif olarak kabul edildi. Bununla birlikte, yanlış negatif oranı %20 idi. Sonuç: Iris IQ200, idrar kültürleri için çok etkili bir tarama cihazıdır. Sonuçların standardizasyonu, doğrudan incelemenin hassasiyeti ve verilerin doğrudan LIS'e aktarılması gibi idrar tahlilinin güvenilirliğini artırarak bazı avantajlar sağlar.

🔖

Cite This Article

Taşcıoğlu, D. A., Özer, M. K., Ömer, B., Dirican, A., Genç, N. S., Eraksoy, H. (2026). The Analytical Performance of an Automated Urine Analyzer - Iriscell IQ200. Çukurova Anestezi ve Cerrahi Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3, 827–832. https://doi.org/10.36516/jocass.1970481

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Wilson WR, Henry NK. Urinary tract infections. In: Wilson WR, Sande M, eds. Current Diagnosis and Treatment in Infectious Diseases. McGraw-Hill; 2000:220-230.
  2. Hughes C, Roebuck MJ. Evaluation of the IRIS 939 UDx flow microscope as a screening system for urinary tract infection. J Clin Pathol. 2003;56(11):844-849. doi:10.1136/jcp.56.11.844.
  3. Elin RJ, Hosseini JM, Kestner J, Rawe M, Ruddel M, Nishi HH. Comparison of automated and manual methods for urinalysis. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986;86(6):731-737. doi:10.1093/ajcp/86.6.731.
  4. Ferris JA. Comparison and standardization of the urine microscopic examination. Lab Med. 1983;14:659-662.
  5. van den Broek D, Keularts IM, Wielders JP, Kraaijenhagen RJ. Benefits of the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyser in routine urinalysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;46(11):1635-1640. doi:10.1515/CCLM.2008.317.
  6. Williams GJ, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Turner RM, Hodson E, Craig JC. Absolute and relative accuracy of rapid urine tests for urinary tract infection in children: a meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(4):240-250. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70031-1.
  7. Stamm WE, Norrby SR. Urinary tract infections: disease panorama and challenges. J Infect Dis. 2001;183 Suppl 1:S1-S4. doi:10.1086/318850.
  8. Zorc JJ, Kiddoo DA, Shaw KN. Diagnosis and management of pediatric urinary tract infections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(2):417-422. doi:10.1128/CMR.18.2.417-422.2005.
  9. Ledru S, Canonne JP. Comparaison des résultats de l'automate Iris IQ Elite à l'examen cytologique de l'urine et évaluation des performances de l'automate pour la prédiction de l'infection urinaire. Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2008;66(5):555-559. doi:10.1684/abc.2008.0267.
  10. Shayanfar N, Tobler U, von Eckardstein A, Bestmann L. Automated urinalysis: first experiences and a comparison between the Iris iQ200 urine microscopy system, the Sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer and manual microscopic particle counting. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45(9):1251-1256. doi:10.1515/CCLM.2007.503.
  11. Akin OK, Serdar MA, Cizmeci Z, Genc O, Aydin S. Comparison of LabUMat-with-UriSed and iQ200 fully automatic urine sediment analysers with manual urine analysis. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2009;53(Pt 2):139-144. doi:10.1042/BA20080188.
  12. Chien TI, Kao JT, Liu HL, et al. Urine sediment examination: a comparison of automated urinalysis systems and manual microscopy. Clin Chim Acta. 2007;384(1-2):28-34. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2007.05.012.
  13. Tullus K. Difficulties in diagnosing urinary tract infections in small children. Pediatr Nephrol. 2011;26(11):1923-1926. doi:10.1007/s00467-011-1966-y.
  14. Linko S, Kouri TT, Toivonen E, Ranta PH, Chapoulaud E, Lalla M. Analytical performance of the Iris iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Clin Chim Acta. 2006;372(1-2):54-64. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2006.03.015.
  15. Laine P, Toivonen E, Eklund K, Hohenthal U, Siren S, Mäki T. Rapid dipstick urinalysis in the internal medicine clinic: what is missed? J Intern Med. 1997;242(3):271-273. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2796.1997.00192.x.
  16. Devillé WL, Yzermans JC, van Duijn NP, Bezemer PD, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM. The urine dipstick test useful to rule out infections. A meta-analysis of the accuracy. BMC Urol. 2004;4:4. doi:10.1186/1471-2490-4-4.
  17. Whiting P, Westwood M, Bojke L, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(36):iii-154. doi:10.3310/hta10360.
  18. Luciano R, Piga S, Federico L, et al. Development of a score based on urinalysis to improve the management of urinary tract infection in children. Clin Chim Acta. 2012;413(3-4):478-482. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2011.11.005.
  19. Griebling TL. Urologic diseases in America: Urinary tract infection in women and men. US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007:589-592.