Dergiler / International Journal of Medical Biochemistry / 2020 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

A comparative study on the performances of 77 elektronika urised 2-LabUmat2 and Dirui FUS200 - H800 urine analyzers

Sayfa
171–177
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Therefore, microscopic analyzers are still needed to be developed concerning method and software although automatic urine analyzers provide standardization and reduce the workload of laboratories.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: This study aims to compare the analytical performance of the 77Elektronika brand LabUmat2-Urised2 model integrated urine analyzer and Dirui brand FUS200-H800 model integrated urine analyzer.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: Urine samples of 139 patients randomly selected from male and female patients of all age groups who were admitted to Ufuk University Faculty of Medicine, Dr.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Therefore, microscopic analyzers are still needed to be developed concerning method and software although automatic urine analyzers provide standardization and reduce the workload of laboratories.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2020 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objectives: This study aims to compare the analytical performance of the 77Elektronika brand LabUmat2-Urised2 model integrated urine analyzer and Dirui brand FUS200-H800 model integrated urine analyzer. Methods: Urine samples of 139 patients randomly selected from male and female patients of all age groups who were admitted to Ufuk University Faculty of Medicine, Dr. Ridvan Ege Hospital between 24.02.2020-28.02.2020 were analyzed on both devices. Results: The results of the samples whose WBC (white blood cell), RBC (red blood cell) and Squamous epithelial were measured using two different methods in microscopic analyzers were perfectly compatible in the same range and with three parameters (Gamma values 0.916; 0.770; 0.961, respectively). For the samples where crystal and cylinder tests were carried out in microscopic analyzers, Cappa values were 0.486 and 0.495, respectively. As the result of Passing-Bablok Regression analysis used for the method comparison of microscopic analyzers, Cusum test results were p<0.01, p=0.01 and p=0.65, respectively for the linearity in the measurement of WBC, RBC and Squamous epithelial. According to the Bland-Altman Compatibility Chart prepared to determine the difference between methods, the difference between the results of the measurements of WBC, RBC and Squamous epithelial in both devices were -29.3±1.96 SD (95% CI, lower limit: -174.6; upper limit: 116); 43.3±1.96 SD (95% CI, lower limit: -119.7; upper limit: 206.2); -4.0±1.96 SD (95% CI, lower limit: -87.8%; upper limit: 79.9), respectively. When the results of the chemical analyzers of each device were compared, the findings showed that there was a high correlation between leukocyte and protein levels. When the compliance of chemical and microscopic units of each device was examined, a high correlation was found for WBC and a medium level correlation for RBC. Conclusion: Although both devices revealed similar results, confirmation with the manual microscope might be required, especially in pathological samples. Therefore, microscopic analyzers are still needed to be developed concerning method and software although automatic urine analyzers provide standardization and reduce the workload of laboratories.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ERÇİN, U. (2020). A comparative study on the performances of 77 elektronika urised 2-LabUmat2 and Dirui FUS200 - H800 urine analyzers. International Journal of Medical Biochemistry, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 171–177. https://ajindex.com/articles/201464

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Cui M, Ju S, Shi Y, Jing R. Performance Verification of the Iris iQ200 Sprint Automated Urine Microscopy Analyzer in a Hospital Routine Laboratory. Clin Lab 2017;63(10):1607–12
  2. Previtali G, Ravasio R, Seghezzi M, Buoro S, Alessio MG. Performance evaluation of the new fully automated urine particle analyser UF-5000 compared to the reference method of the Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber. Clin Chim Acta 2017;472:123–30
  3. Herráez Carrera Ó, Jarabo Bueno MDM. Cost Analysis of the Automated Examination of Urine with the Sysmex UN-Series™ in a Spanish Population. Pharmacoecon Open. 2020 Feb 21. doi: 10.1007/s41669-020-00200-3. [Epub ahead of print]
  4. Ercan M, Firat Oguz E. Evaluation of BT uricell1280 automated urine sediment analyzer performance. Medicine Science 2018;7(3):503–6
  5. W Wesarachkitti B, Khejonnit V, Pratumvinit B, Reesukumal K, Meepanya S, Pattanavin C, et al. Performance Evaluation and Comparison of the Fully Automated Urinalysis Analyzers UX2000 and Cobas 6500. Lab Med 2016;47(2):124–33
  6. Nascimento DZ, Pickler MD, Marques GM, Trevisol FS, Martins ALO. Sediment examination of urine without physical-chemical alterations. J Bras Patol Med Lab 2018;54(3):177–82
  7. Bunjevac A, Gabaj NN, Miler M, Horvat A. Preanalytics of urine sediment examination: effect of relative centrifugal force, tube type, volume of sample and supernatant removal. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2018;28(1):010707
  8. Pikta M, Jerjomina J, Kleinson I, Titova T, Reitsnik T. Evaluation of Automated Urine Sediment Analysis for Routine use. Clinica Chimica Acta 2019;493:S44
  9. Bakan E, Ozturk N, Baygutalp NK, Polat E, Akpinar K, Dorman E, et al. Comparison of Cobas 6500 and Iris IQ200 fully-automated urine analyzers to manual urine microscopy. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2016;26(3):365–75
  10. Yüksel H, Kiliç E, Ekinci A, Evliyaoğlu O. Comparison of fully automated urine sediment analyzers H800-FUS100 and LabUMat-UriSed with manual microscopy. J Clin Lab Anal 2013;27(4):312–6
  11. Laiwejpithaya S, Wongkrajang P, Reesukumal K, Bucha C, Meepanya S, Pattanavin C, et al. UriSed 3 and UX-2000 automated urine sediment analyzers vs manual microscopic method: A comparative performance analysis. J Clin Lab Anal 2018;32(2):e22249
  12. Jintasuthanont P, Khejonnit V, Opaskiattikul N, Chinswangwatanakul W, Gonggetyai V. Evaluation of the Performance of the Automated Urine Sediment Analyzer “Urised” Compared with the Manual Method. Siriraj Med J 2010;62:152–6
  13. Mukakab MM. Statistics Corner: A guide to