Korean Journal of Clinical Laboratory Science (대한임상검사과학회지)

Korean Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (대한임상검사과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Standardization of Sample Preparation for Urine Sediment Microscopic Examination

요침사 현미경검사를 위한 표본제작의 표준화 연구

  • Hyeok Jae LEE (Department of Biomedical Laboratory Science, Gwangju Health University) ;
  • Dae Heon KIM (Department of Biomedical Science, Suncheon National University) ;
  • Min-Hyeok LEE (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Suncheon Hankook Hospital)
  • 이혁재 (광주보건대학교 임상병리학과) ;
  • 김대헌 (국립순천대학교 의생명과학과) ;
  • 이민혁 (순천한국병원 진단검사의학과)
  • Received : 2024.05.02
  • Accepted : 2024.05.29
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Urinalysis is a fundamental diagnostic test routinely performed in clinical laboratories. We evaluated two manual microscopy methods, including a novel protocol, against the standardized chamber method. A total of 402 specimens, comprising 201 positive each for red blood cells (RBCs) and white blood cells (WBCs) by the strip test and automated urine sediment analyzer, were selected for the analysis. The correlation coefficients between the standardized chamber method and the novel protocol RBC and WBC test were both r=0.98, indicating a high degree of correlation. The pair-wise agreement rates for the same grade between these two methods were 86.1% for RBCs and 88.6% for WBCs, with rates within one grade difference of both at 99.5%. In contrast, the agreement rates between the standardized chamber method and smaller or medium-sized laboratory methods were notably lower, with the same-grade rates at 11.9% for RBCs and 13.4% for WBCs, and within one grade difference at 67.2% and 74.1%, respectively. Additional analyses using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots confirmed that the novel protocol exhibited superior agreement compared to the other three manual microscopy methods tested. Therefore, we recommend the novel protocol as a standardized procedure for urine sediment preparation, given its high correlation and agreement with the standardized chamber method.

요검사는 검사실에서 일상적으로 수행되는 기본적인 검사이다. 연구에서 새로운 프로토콜을 포함한 두 가지 수동 현미경검사 방법을 표준화된 chamber 방법과 비교하였다. 시험지검사와 자동 침사물 분석기에서 적혈구 양성 201개와 백혈구 양성인 201개 검체로 구성된 총 402개 검체를 분석 대상으로 선정했다. 적혈구 및 백혈구에 대한 표준화된 chamber 방법과 새로운 프로토콜 방법 간의 상관계수는 모두 r=0.98로, 높은 수준의 상관관계를 나타냈다. 이 두 방법 간의 동일 등급에 대한 쌍별 일치율은 적혈구의 경우 86.1%, 백혈구의 경우 88.6%였으며, 한 등급 차이 내 일치율은 모두 99.5%였다. 반면, 표준화된 chamber 방법과 중·소규모 검사실 방법 간의 일치율은 적혈구의 경우 11.9%, 백혈구의 경우 13.4%로, 동일 등급 일치율이 현저히 낮았고, 한 등급 차이 내 일치율은 각각 67.2%와 74.1%로 나타났다. 급내상관계수 및 Bland-Altman plot을 사용한 분석에서는 새로운 프로토콜이 다른 세 가지 수동 현미경검사 방법에 비해 우수한 일치도를 보인 것으로 확인되었다. 표준화된 chamber 방법과의 높은 상관관계와 일치도를 고려해 볼 때, 새로운 프로토콜 방법을 소변 침사물 표본제작의 표준화된 절차로 권장한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (2023R1A2C1007284).

References

  1. Hemmelgarn BR, Manns BJ, Lloyd A, James MT, Klarenbach S, Quinn RR, et al. Relation between kidney function, proteinuria, and adverse outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303:423-429. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.39 
  2. Huussen J, Koene RA, Hilbrands LB. The (fixed) urinary sediment, a simple and useful diagnostic tool in patients with haematuria. Neth J Med. 2004;62:4-9. 
  3. Simerville JA, Maxted WC, Pahira JJ. Urinalysis: a comprehensive review. Am Fam Physician. 2005;71:1153-1162. 
  4. Shin SY, Kwon MJ, Woo HY, Park H, Kim YJ. Preliminary evaluation of the URiSCAN SUPER and usefulness of a new urine reagent strip to detect ascorbic acid. J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2011;33:63-69. 
  5. Han TH. Urinalysis: the usefulness and limitations of urine dipstick testing. J Korean Soc Pediatr Nephrol. 2013;17:42-48. https://doi.org/10.3339/jkspn.2013.17.2.42 
  6. Ben-Ezra J, Bork L, McPherson RA. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF-100 automated urinalysis analyzer. Clin Chem. 1998;44:92-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/44.1.92 
  7. Elin RJ, Hosseini JM, Kestner J, Rawe M, Ruddel M, Nishi HH. Comparison of automated and manual methods for urinalysis. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986;86:731-737. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/86.6.731 
  8. Jeon CH, Lee AJ, Kim KD. Annual report on external quality assessment scheme for urinalysis and faecal occult blood testing in Korea (2014). J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2015;37:179-189. https://doi.org/10.15263/jlmqa.2015.37.4.179 
  9. Ottiger C, Huber AR. Quantitative urine particle analysis: integrative approach for the optimal combination of automation with UF-100 and microscopic review with KOVA cell chamber. Clin Chem. 2003;49:617-623. https://doi.org/10.1373/49.4.617 
  10. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24:69-71. 
  11. Rosner BA. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 6th ed. Duxbury Press: 2006. 
  12. Kim KD, Koo SH, Kim EC, Kim JM, Kim CH, Kim JQ, et al. Annual report on external quality assessment in urinalysis in Korea (1998). J Clin Pathol Qual Control. 1999;21:81-93. 
  13. Kim DC, Yoo YM, Jo SS, Park J, Yoon Y, Kim JQ. Laboratory evaluation of fully automated urine cell analyzer sysmex UF-100. J Clin Pathol Qual Control. 2001;23:299-306. 
  14. Lee AJ, Jeon CH, Kim SG, Suh HS, Bae YC. Comparison of analytical performance between the sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer and the Iris iQ200 urine microscopy system. J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2010;32:181-188. 
  15. Kim JQ, Kim DC, Jo SS. The present situation of quality assurance of urinalysis including urinary sediment analysis based on Korean external quality assurance survey and its prospective. J Clin Pathol Qual Control. 2000;22:265-270. 
  16. Delanghe JR, Speeckaert MM. Preanalytics in urinalysis. Clin Biochem. 2016;49:1346-1350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.10.016 
  17. Lee AJ, Park CG, Bae YC, Jeon CH. Quality improvement of urinalysis results based on automatic sediment urinalysis and urine strip results. J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2017;39:154-161. https://doi.org/10.15263/jlmqa.2017.39.4.154 
  18. Lamchiagdhase P, Preechaborisutkul K, Lomsomboon P, Srisuchart P, Tantiniti P, Khan-u-Ra N, et al. Urine sediment examination: a comparison between the manual method and the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Clin Chim Acta. 2005;358:167-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cccn.2005.02.021 
  19. Jung CL, Kim SG, Moon HW, Lee MA, Chung WS. Evaluation and establishment of reference range of automated urine cell analyzer UF-100. J Lab Med Qual Assur. 2008;30:209-215. 
  20. Park SI, Oh TH. Statistical test of agreement between measurements in method-comparison study. J Vet Clin. 2011;28:108-112. 
  21. Choi HJ, Yang DH, Kwon SJ, Kang PR, Park HS, Kim TY, et al. Comparison of IRIS Iq200, UF-1000i, and Cobas u701 module automated urine sediment analyzers. Lab Med Online. 2020;10:283-294. https://doi.org/10.47429/lmo.2020.10.4.283 
  22. White SA, van den Broek NR. Methods for assessing reliability and validity for a measurement tool: a case study and critique using the WHO haemoglobin colour scale. Stat Med. 2004;23:1603-1619. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1804 
  23. Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology: beyond the basics. 2nd ed. Jones and Bartlett Publishers: 2007. 
  24. Bartlett JW, Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:466-475. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5256 
  25. Hanneman SK. Design, analysis, and interpretation of method-comparison studies. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008;19:223-234. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AACN.0000318125.41512.a3 
  26. Kim JQ, Cho SS, Kim SR, Kim KD, Min WK, Lee KN. Annual report on external quality assessment in urinalysis in Korea (1992). J Lab Med Qual Assur. 1993;15:47-66. 
  27. Cho SS, Yoo YM, Kim JQ, Kim KD, Kim YA, Kim CH, et al. Annual report on external quality assessment in urinalysis in Korea (1996). J Clin Pathol Qual Control. 1997;19:89-105. 
  28. Ko DH, Ji M, Kim S, Cho EJ, Lee W, Yun YM, et al. An approach to standardization of urine sediment analysis via suggestion of a common manual protocol. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2016;76:256-263. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2016.1144141