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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |