Cargando…

Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis

INTRODUCTION: Preanalytical specifications for urinalysis must be strictly adhered to avoid false interpretations. Aim of the present study is to examine whether the preanalytical factor ‘time point of analysis’ significantly influences stability of urine samples for urine particle and dipstick anal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dolscheid-Pommerich, Ramona C., Klarmann-Schulz, Ute, Conrad, Rupert, Stoffel-Wagner, Birgit, Zur, Berndt
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26981022
http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.008
_version_ 1782420071214219264
author Dolscheid-Pommerich, Ramona C.
Klarmann-Schulz, Ute
Conrad, Rupert
Stoffel-Wagner, Birgit
Zur, Berndt
author_facet Dolscheid-Pommerich, Ramona C.
Klarmann-Schulz, Ute
Conrad, Rupert
Stoffel-Wagner, Birgit
Zur, Berndt
author_sort Dolscheid-Pommerich, Ramona C.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Preanalytical specifications for urinalysis must be strictly adhered to avoid false interpretations. Aim of the present study is to examine whether the preanalytical factor ‘time point of analysis’ significantly influences stability of urine samples for urine particle and dipstick analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 321 pathological spontaneous urine samples, urine dipstick (Urisys™2400, Combur-10-Test™strips, Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and particle analysis (UF-1000 i™, Sysmex, Norderstedt, Germany) were performed within 90 min, 120 min and 240 min after urine collection. RESULTS: For urine particle analysis, a significant increase in conductivity (120 vs. 90 min: P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min: P < 0.001) and a significant decrease in WBC (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), RBC (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), casts (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001) and epithelial cells (120 vs. 90 min P = 0.610, 240 vs. 90 min P = 0.041) were found. There were no significant changes for bacteria. Regarding urine dipstick analysis, misclassification rates between measurements were significant for pH (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), leukocytes (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), nitrite (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), protein (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P<0.001), ketone (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), blood (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), specific gravity (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001) and urobilinogen (120 vs. 90 min, P = 0.031). Misclassification rates were not significant for glucose and bilirubin. CONCLUSION: Most parameters critically depend on the time window between sampling and analysis. Our study stresses the importance of adherence to early time points in urinalysis (within 90 min).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4783094
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47830942016-03-15 Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis Dolscheid-Pommerich, Ramona C. Klarmann-Schulz, Ute Conrad, Rupert Stoffel-Wagner, Birgit Zur, Berndt Biochem Med (Zagreb) Research Article INTRODUCTION: Preanalytical specifications for urinalysis must be strictly adhered to avoid false interpretations. Aim of the present study is to examine whether the preanalytical factor ‘time point of analysis’ significantly influences stability of urine samples for urine particle and dipstick analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 321 pathological spontaneous urine samples, urine dipstick (Urisys™2400, Combur-10-Test™strips, Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and particle analysis (UF-1000 i™, Sysmex, Norderstedt, Germany) were performed within 90 min, 120 min and 240 min after urine collection. RESULTS: For urine particle analysis, a significant increase in conductivity (120 vs. 90 min: P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min: P < 0.001) and a significant decrease in WBC (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), RBC (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), casts (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001) and epithelial cells (120 vs. 90 min P = 0.610, 240 vs. 90 min P = 0.041) were found. There were no significant changes for bacteria. Regarding urine dipstick analysis, misclassification rates between measurements were significant for pH (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), leukocytes (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), nitrite (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), protein (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P<0.001), ketone (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), blood (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), specific gravity (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001) and urobilinogen (120 vs. 90 min, P = 0.031). Misclassification rates were not significant for glucose and bilirubin. CONCLUSION: Most parameters critically depend on the time window between sampling and analysis. Our study stresses the importance of adherence to early time points in urinalysis (within 90 min). Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2016-02-15 2016-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4783094/ /pubmed/26981022 http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.008 Text en
spellingShingle Research Article
Dolscheid-Pommerich, Ramona C.
Klarmann-Schulz, Ute
Conrad, Rupert
Stoffel-Wagner, Birgit
Zur, Berndt
Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis
title Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis
title_full Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis
title_fullStr Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis
title_short Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis
title_sort evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26981022
http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.008
work_keys_str_mv AT dolscheidpommerichramonac evaluationoftheappropriatetimeperiodbetweensamplingandanalyzingforautomatedurinalysis
AT klarmannschulzute evaluationoftheappropriatetimeperiodbetweensamplingandanalyzingforautomatedurinalysis
AT conradrupert evaluationoftheappropriatetimeperiodbetweensamplingandanalyzingforautomatedurinalysis
AT stoffelwagnerbirgit evaluationoftheappropriatetimeperiodbetweensamplingandanalyzingforautomatedurinalysis
AT zurberndt evaluationoftheappropriatetimeperiodbetweensamplingandanalyzingforautomatedurinalysis