Journals / Türk Biyokimya Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 6

İdrar otoanalizörlerinde bulaşmanın diagnostik tuzağı

Diagnostic pitfall of carryover: in automatic urine analyzers

Pages
473–478
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️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)

To prevent carryover n both urine analyzers; washing procedures should be revised and the diagnostic effect of carryover should also be taken into account by biochemists.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We aimed to find out whether there is significant carryover effect which causes false-positive hematuria on red blood cells (RBCs) in automatic urine chemistry (DIRUI H-800) and sediment (DIRUI FUS-200) analyzers.Methods: Twenty-four samples with gross hematuria selected as containing high RBC concentration and fortyeight samples which had both negative result in dipstick and 0/hpf in microscopic examination selected as containing low RBC concentration.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Carryover% was calculated via the formula [carryover% = 100 × (b1 - b2)/(a2-b2)].
💡
Conclusion & Impact:To prevent carryover n both urine analyzers; washing procedures should be revised and the diagnostic effect of carryover should also be taken into account by biochemists.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to find out whether there is significant carryover effect which causes false-positive hematuria on red blood cells (RBCs) in automatic urine chemistry (DIRUI H-800) and sediment (DIRUI FUS-200) analyzers.Methods: Twenty-four samples with gross hematuria selected as containing high RBC concentration and fortyeight samples which had both negative result in dipstick and 0/hpf in microscopic examination selected as containing low RBC concentration. Carryover% was calculated via the formula [carryover% = 100 × (b1 - b2)/(a2-b2)]. Carryover effect within results was analyzed with Wilcoxon test.Results: Carryover% was very high (67%) in urine chemistry analyzer. Carryover% of urine sediment analyzer was found 0.4% whilst false-positive hematuria percentage was 87.5% for the first samples came after gross hematuria and 6.6% for the second samples. The first samples analyzed after gross hematuria had significantly higher (p 3/hpf) is low. To prevent carryover n both urine analyzers; washing procedures should be revised and the diagnostic effect of carryover should also be taken into account by biochemists.

Özet

Amaç: Laboratuvarımızda kullanılan idrar otoanalizöründe örneklerin kimyasal ve sediment analizinde, analitik olarak kabul edilebilir sınırda olmasına rağmen yanlış pozitif hematüri tanısına yol açabilecek eritrosit bulaşması olup olmadığını tespit etmeyi amaçladık.Metod: Hasta örneklerinden 24 adet makroskopik hematürili ve 48 adet eritrosit içermeyen idrar numunesi seçildi. Eritrosit içermeyen örnekler, makroskopik hematürili örneklerin ardından tekrar analiz edildi. Bulaşma yüzdesi Broughton'un formülü [carryover% = 100 × (b1 - b2)/(a2 - b2)] ile hesaplandı. Bulaşma etkisinin sonuçları etkileyip etkilemediği Wilcoxon testi ile değerlendirildi.Bulgular: İdrar kimyasal analizöründeki bulaşma %67 oranında iken sediment analizinde ise %0,4 olarak bulundu. İdrar sediment analizöründe eritrosit içermeyen örneklerin yanlış pozitiflik oranlarının hematüriden sonra çalışılan 1.örneklerde %87,5, 2.örneklerde ise %6,6 olduğu belirlendi. Her iki analizörde de hematüriden sonra gelen 1.örneklerin sonuçları, 2.örneklerin sonuçlarından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı yüksek bulundu (p 3/hpf) nedeniyle, yüksek oranda yanlış pozitif hematüri sonuçlarına neden olduğu saptandı. Bulaşmayı önlemek için, her iki idrar analizörünün de yıkama basamakları ve prosedürleri revize edilmelidir. Ayrıca biyokimya uzmanları, bulaşmanın analitik sınırları ile birlikte olası tanısal etkilerine de gerekli dikkati göstermelidir

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRMAK, S., EVLİYAOĞLU, O., VURGUN, E., AKARSUBAŞI, İ. (2022). İdrar otoanalizörlerinde bulaşmanın diagnostik tuzağı. Türk Biyokimya Dergisi, Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 6, 473–478. https://ajindex.com/articles/621070

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Weibel R, Iten M, König I, Beckbissinger R, Benthien T, Hälg W, et al. Development of standard test procedures for quantifying carry over from fixed pipetting tips in liquid-handling systems. J Lab Autom 2010;15:369. Fregeau CJ, Lett CM, Elliott J, Yensen C, Fourney RM. Automated processing of forensic casework samples using robotic worksta- tions equipped with nondisposable tips: contamination preven- tion. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:632-51.
  2. Armbruster DA, Alexander DB. Sample to sample carryover: a source of analytical laboratory error and its relevance to inte- grated clinical chemistry/immunoassay systems. Clin Chim Acta;373:37-43. Stephens TW. Performance of two new algorithms for estimating within- and between-method carryover evaluated statistically. Clin Chem 1988;34:1805-11.
  3. Schlain B, Frush H, Pennington C, Osikowicz G, Ford K. Two-stage procedure for evaluating interassay carryover on random-access instruments. Clin Chem 1996;42:725-31. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. London: European Medicines Agency (EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009 Rev.1 Corr. **). 21 July 2011. Broughton PM. Carry-over in automatic analysers. J Autom Chem;6:94-5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Urinalysis and col- lection, transportation, and preservation of Urine specimens. Approved Guideline - 3rd Ed NCCLS document GP16-A3, 11 Nov 2013. Krouwer JS. Setting performance goals and evaluating total ana- lytical error for diagnostic assays. Clin Chem 2002;48:919-27.
  4. Davis R, Jones JS, Barocas DA, Castle EP, Lang EK, Leveillee RJ, et al. American urological association. Diagnosis, evaluation and follow-up of asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH) in adults: AUA guideline. J Urol 2012;188:2473-81.
  5. Grossfeld GD, Litwin MS, Wolf JS, Hricak H, Shuler CL, Agerter DC, et al. Evaluation of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria in adults: the American Urological Association best practice policy--part I: definition, detection, prevalence, and etiology. Urology 2001;57:599-603. Wood EG. Asymptomatic hematuria in childhood: a practical approach to evaluation. Indian J Pediatr 1999;66:207-14.
  6. Okada H, Sakai Y, Kawabata G, Fujisawa M, Arakawa S, Hamaguchi Y, et al. Automated urinalysis. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-50. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;115:605-10.
  7. Wang J, Zhang Y, Xu D, Shao W, Lu Y. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-1000i for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;133:577-82.
  8. Coppens A, Speeckaert M, Delanghe J. The pre-analytical chal- lenges of routine uri