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.