透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.145.93.221
  • 期刊

比較兩種自動化尿液沉渣分析儀及常規手工計數的差異

Difference between Manual Urinalysis and Two Automated Image-based Urine Sediment Analyzers

摘要


目的:自動化尿液沉渣分析儀之間的差異,與醫檢師人工鏡檢(manual counts)進行一致性的分析,來討論儀器在臨床上的應用。方法:使用USCANNER®(E)與IQ®200兩台自動化尿液沉渣分析儀和S-Y雙劃格顯微玻片人工鏡檢法進行門診尿液檢體的分析。結果:在Linearity測量RBC超過500/HPF時,兩者線性關係相差兩倍以上。IQ®200在RBC第3及第6次的循環,其carryover分別為0.1% 及0.3%,USCANNER®(E)則無。manual counts在Within-run precision的研究,RBC 和WBC的CV最低為15.9%,此結果均高於兩台儀器的CV最高值的14.8%。在Comparison of USCANNER®(E)、IQ®200 and manual counts的部分,IQ®200在RBC、WBC、Epithelial cell及Cast與manual counts的一致性都較USCANNER®(E)高,Bacteria則是USCANNER®(E)較高。結論:醫檢師不只利用自動化儀器完成工作,增加檢驗效率,亦可協助醫檢師去發現問題並改善檢驗流程。

並列摘要


Objective: This study examined the performance of two types of automated image-based urine sediment analyzers and their consistency with manual counts, and discussed the clinical implications of the analyzers. Methods: We used two automated image-based urine sediment analyzers - USCANNER® (E) and IQ®200, with the S-Y Double Grids Microscopic Slide System, to analyze the urine samples from the outpatient department. Results: The two analyzers demonstrated a more than two times linear difference when RBC count was larger than 500/HPF. The carryover incidence rates were 0.1% and 0.3% on the 3rd and the 6th cycle of IQ® 200 for RBC, respectively, while none occurred in the USCANNER® (E). Within-run precision analysis showed that a minimum CV value of 15.9% for RBC and WBC in manual counts, which was greater than the maximum CV value of both analyzers - 14.8%. The IQ®200 and manual counts were more consistent in RBC, WBC epithelial cell and Cast counts as compared to USCANNER®(E), while the USCANNER®(E) was more consistent in bacteria count as compared to the other two methods. Conclusion: Medical technologist could not only improve the efficiency of examinations using automated analyzers, but also be assisted to correct the errors detected.

延伸閱讀