A multicenter research on validation and improvement of the intelligent verification criteria for routine urinalysis
10.3760/cma.j.cn114452-20191225-00751
- VernacularTitle:尿液常规智能审核规则验证与改进的多中心研究
- Author:
Li WANG
1
;
Xiaoke HAO
;
Dagan YANG
;
Li JIANG
;
Chengming SUN
;
Weifeng SHI
;
Yong WU
;
Wei WU
;
Jiayun LIU
;
Weiyi XU
;
Juan ZHANG
;
Liping YANG
;
Lijuan JIANG
;
Jinling YUAN
;
Jing JIN
;
Gangqiang WANG
;
Qian YU
;
Zhigang XIONG
;
Chenyu WANG
;
Shuna JIANG
;
Jinfeng LIAO
;
Bei HE
;
Wei CUI
Author Information
1. 国家癌症中心/国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院检验科，北京 100021
- From:
Chinese Journal of Laboratory Medicine
2020;43(8):794-801
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:A multi-center and large sample volume study was conducted on the verification and improvement of the early established criteria for intelligent routine urinalysis validation (including the microscopic review rules and manual validation rules, referred to as intelligent criteria for short), in order to improve the clinical application of this intelligent criteria.Methods:A total of 31 456 urine specimens were collected from the inpatients and outpatients in six hospitals in China, from March to September 2019. Firstly, 3105 specimens were analyzed for preliminary verification and improvement of the intelligent criteria based on the results of the microscopic examination and manual validation. Secondly, 28 351 specimens were used to verify the clinical application of the improved intelligent criteria. All samples were manually validated as reference.Results:The approval inconsistency rate of the manual validation rules in the original intelligent criteria was 8.59% (202/2 352), and the interception inconsistency rate was 8.84% (208/2 352). The false negative rate and the microscopic review rate of the microscopic review rules were similar to the previous results. Based on an in-depth analysis of big data and the discussions by senior technicians from eight hospitals, one microscopic review rules and four manual validation rules were added, meanwhile two manual validation rule was deleted. The manual validation standards were unified. Finally, the intelligent criteria was improved. Based on the improved intelligent criteria, for microscopic review rules, the false positive rate, false negative rate (misdiagnosis rate), and microscopic review rate did not change significantly, which were 14.72% (457/3 105), 4.06% (126/3 105), and 24.73% (768/3 105), respectively. The approval inconsistency rate and the interception inconsistency rate of manual validation rules were both reduced to 0; the total manual validation rate of the intelligent criteria was 50.89% (1 580/3 105), and the auto-validation rate was 49.11% (1 525/3 105). The large sample volume verification results were consistent with the preliminary verification results of the improved intelligent criteria.Conclusion:This multi-center and large sample volume study had shown that the improved intelligent criteria had better clinical performance.
