Materials and methods
There were 124 randomly selected samples of patients in the clinical
pathology laboratory of a tertiary Care hospital. The study was
performed in compliance with the ethical guidelines. The samples were
collected, transported, and prepared for urinalysis in concordance with
European Urinalysis Guidelines. 4 Around 30 ml of
midstream clean catch urine samples were taken in clean containers and
transported to the Clinical laboratory. Three transparent glass tubes of
10 ml each were taken and a urine sample was poured into each tube for
microscopy and automated analysis by the two analyzers respectively and
was examined in a period of 60 minutes. The first tube was centrifuged
for 10 min at 1500 RPM and one drop of sediment was placed on the
microscope slide and 10 different microscopic fields were scanned at
magnifications Low power and High powe respectively. The results were
calculated by taking the average of the formed elements and reporting
them as Cells/ HPF. The result was analysed by two pathologists and if
any discrepancy found in the result, the analysis was repeated to
resolve the discrepancy. Another 10 ml sample was run in each
semi-automated URiSCAN Super+ YD Diagnostics and Sysmex UC-3500
-UF 5000 Urine Chemistry Analyzer respectively. The results from the
instruments were obtained as the average of formed elements per LPF and
HPF. The analytical principle of the analyzers uses flow cytometry cell
digital imaging and identification using an artificial intelligence
technique. Finally, the result from both auto analyzers was compared for
urine chemistry between the analyzers and the result of formed elements
of urine from the Sysmex UC-3500 -UF 5000 Urine Chemistry Analyzer was
compared with manual microscopy. The results of various cells formed
elements and microorganisms were compared between both the automated
urine analyzers and microscopy.
Statistical Analysis: Degree of concordance was used to
interpret the strength of agreement and kappa value was observed. A
comparison between the two groups was conducted utilizing Cohen’s kappa
(κ) analysis to see the concordance between all three values. The
statistical analyses were checked using SPSS version 24, developed by
IBM Co. in Armonk, NY, USA. Results with p-values below 0.05 were
considered to be statistically significant.