Cargando…
Comparing Two Automated Techniques for the Primary Screening-Out of Urine Culture
Urinary tract infection is the most common human infection with a high morbidity. In primary care and hospital services, conventional urine culture is a key part of infection diagnosis but results take at least 24 h. Therefore, a rapid and reliable screening method is still needed to discard negativ...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302016/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30619863 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00353 |
_version_ | 1783381899058610176 |
---|---|
author | Millán-Lou, María Isabel García-Lechuz, Juan Manuel Ruiz-Andrés, María Angeles López, Concepción Aldea, María José Egido, P. Revillo, María José Rezusta, Antonio |
author_facet | Millán-Lou, María Isabel García-Lechuz, Juan Manuel Ruiz-Andrés, María Angeles López, Concepción Aldea, María José Egido, P. Revillo, María José Rezusta, Antonio |
author_sort | Millán-Lou, María Isabel |
collection | PubMed |
description | Urinary tract infection is the most common human infection with a high morbidity. In primary care and hospital services, conventional urine culture is a key part of infection diagnosis but results take at least 24 h. Therefore, a rapid and reliable screening method is still needed to discard negative samples as quickly as possible and to reduce the laboratory workload. In this aspect, this study aims to compare the diagnostic performance between Sysmex UF-1000i and FUS200 systems in comparison to urine culture as the gold standard. From March to June 2016, 1,220 urine samples collected at the clinical microbiology laboratory of the “Miguel Servet” hospital were studied in parallel with both analysers, and some technical features were evaluated to select the ideal equipment. The most balanced cut-off values taking into account bacteria or leukocyte counts were 138 bacteria/μL or 119.8 leukocyte/μL for the UF-1000i (95.3% SE and 70.4% SP), and 5.7 bacteria/μL or 4.3 leukocyte/μL for the FUS200 (95.8% SE and 44.4% SP). The reduction of cultured plates was 37.4% with the FUS200 and 58.3% with the UF-1000i. This study shows that both techniques improve the workflow in the laboratory, but the UF-1000i has the highest specificity at any sensitivity and the FUS200 needs a shorter processing time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6302016 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63020162019-01-07 Comparing Two Automated Techniques for the Primary Screening-Out of Urine Culture Millán-Lou, María Isabel García-Lechuz, Juan Manuel Ruiz-Andrés, María Angeles López, Concepción Aldea, María José Egido, P. Revillo, María José Rezusta, Antonio Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine Urinary tract infection is the most common human infection with a high morbidity. In primary care and hospital services, conventional urine culture is a key part of infection diagnosis but results take at least 24 h. Therefore, a rapid and reliable screening method is still needed to discard negative samples as quickly as possible and to reduce the laboratory workload. In this aspect, this study aims to compare the diagnostic performance between Sysmex UF-1000i and FUS200 systems in comparison to urine culture as the gold standard. From March to June 2016, 1,220 urine samples collected at the clinical microbiology laboratory of the “Miguel Servet” hospital were studied in parallel with both analysers, and some technical features were evaluated to select the ideal equipment. The most balanced cut-off values taking into account bacteria or leukocyte counts were 138 bacteria/μL or 119.8 leukocyte/μL for the UF-1000i (95.3% SE and 70.4% SP), and 5.7 bacteria/μL or 4.3 leukocyte/μL for the FUS200 (95.8% SE and 44.4% SP). The reduction of cultured plates was 37.4% with the FUS200 and 58.3% with the UF-1000i. This study shows that both techniques improve the workflow in the laboratory, but the UF-1000i has the highest specificity at any sensitivity and the FUS200 needs a shorter processing time. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6302016/ /pubmed/30619863 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00353 Text en Copyright © 2018 Millán-Lou, García-Lechuz, Ruiz-Andrés, López, Aldea, Egido, Revillo and Rezusta. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Medicine Millán-Lou, María Isabel García-Lechuz, Juan Manuel Ruiz-Andrés, María Angeles López, Concepción Aldea, María José Egido, P. Revillo, María José Rezusta, Antonio Comparing Two Automated Techniques for the Primary Screening-Out of Urine Culture |
title | Comparing Two Automated Techniques for the Primary Screening-Out of Urine Culture |
title_full | Comparing Two Automated Techniques for the Primary Screening-Out of Urine Culture |
title_fullStr | Comparing Two Automated Techniques for the Primary Screening-Out of Urine Culture |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing Two Automated Techniques for the Primary Screening-Out of Urine Culture |
title_short | Comparing Two Automated Techniques for the Primary Screening-Out of Urine Culture |
title_sort | comparing two automated techniques for the primary screening-out of urine culture |
topic | Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302016/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30619863 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00353 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT millanloumariaisabel comparingtwoautomatedtechniquesfortheprimaryscreeningoutofurineculture AT garcialechuzjuanmanuel comparingtwoautomatedtechniquesfortheprimaryscreeningoutofurineculture AT ruizandresmariaangeles comparingtwoautomatedtechniquesfortheprimaryscreeningoutofurineculture AT lopezconcepcion comparingtwoautomatedtechniquesfortheprimaryscreeningoutofurineculture AT aldeamariajose comparingtwoautomatedtechniquesfortheprimaryscreeningoutofurineculture AT egidop comparingtwoautomatedtechniquesfortheprimaryscreeningoutofurineculture AT revillomariajose comparingtwoautomatedtechniquesfortheprimaryscreeningoutofurineculture AT rezustaantonio comparingtwoautomatedtechniquesfortheprimaryscreeningoutofurineculture |