Automation of urine tests is becoming an increasingly widespread practice in laboratory medicine. With the introduction of automatic urine analyzers, the amount of samples examined in a certain time period is increased, the need for manpower is reduced and the amount of human-influenced errors is limited. However, manual analysis with a microscope is still considered the "gold standard", so it is crucial to recognize both the advantages and disadvantages of new urinalysis methods. We test the automatic urine analyzer AtellicaTM UAS 800, which we compare with two reference methods - the semi-automatic analyzer Cobas u411 and a manual microscope. In the paper, we first describe the process of urinalysis and present in more detail the individual phases and the parameters that are analyzed within. Following, we describe used methodology, we arrange and analyze the results of urine samples that were already analyzed with different analytical systems. The results are shown separately for each phase of the urinalysis. Based on this we get an insight into the correspondence between the methods used. The findings show that the agreement between the methods is better in the phase of chemical analysis using test strips, where we compared the tested automatic and reference semi-automatic urine analyzers. The agreement between the methods is poorer in urine sediment analysis, where the tested analyzer is compared with manual microscopy.
|
