Original scientific paper

https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.008

Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis

Ramona C. Dolscheid-Pommerich ; Department of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Ute Klarmann-Schulz ; Institute of Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Rupert Conrad ; Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Birgit Stoffel-Wagner ; Department of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Berndt Zur ; Department of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

Abstract

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).

Keywords

urinalysis; automation; analytical sample preparation methods; flow cytometry; specimen handling

Hrčak ID:

153883

URI

https://hrcak.srce.hr/153883

Publication date:

15.2.2016.

Visits: 2.209 *