You have to be registered and logged in for purchasing articles.


ORIGINAL ARTICLEAnalysis of Four Automated Urinalysis Systems Compared to Reference Methods by Kamila Bartosova, Zdenek Kubicek, Janka Franekova, Gustav Louzensky, Petra Lavrikova, Antonin Jabor

Background: The aim of this study was to compare four automated urinalysis systems: the Iris iQ200 Sprint (Iris Diagnostics, U.S.A.) combined with the Arkray AUTION MAX AX 4030, Iris + AUTION, Arkray AU 4050 (Arkray Global Business, Inc., Japan), Dirui FUS 2000 (Dirui Industrial Co., P.R.C.), and Menarini sediMAX (Menarini, Italy).
Methods: Urine concentrations of protein and glucose (Iris, Dirui) were compared using reference quantitative analysis on an Abbott Architect c16000. Leukocytes, erythrocytes, epithelia, and casts (Iris, Arkray, Diuri, Menarini) were compared to urine sediment under reference light microscopy, Leica DM2000 (Leica Microsystems GmbH, Germany) with calibrated FastRead plates (Biosigma S.r.l., Italy), using both native and stained preparations.
Results: Total protein and glucose levels were measured using the Iris + AUTION system with borderline trueness, while the Dirui analysis revealed worse performances for the protein and glucose measurements. True classifications of leukocytes and erythrocytes were above 85% and 72%, respectively. Kappa statistics revealed a nearly perfect evaluation of leukocytes for all tested systems; the erythrocyte evaluation was nearly perfect for the Iris, Dirui and Arkray analyzers and substantial for the Menarini analyzer. The epithelia identification was connected to high false negativity (above 15%) in the Iris, Arkray, and Menarini analyses. False-negative casts were above 70% for all tested systems.
Conclusions: The use of automated urinalysis demonstrated some weaknesses and should be checked by experienced laboratory staff using light microscopy.

DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2016.160316