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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Millán-Lou, María Isabel, García-Lechuz, Juan Manuel, Ruiz-Andrés, María Angeles, López, Concepción, Aldea, María José, Egido, P., Revillo, María José, Rezusta, Antonio
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