Comparative study of urine sediment elements with fully automated analyzer and the bright field microscope method using Sternheimer Malbin dye
- VernacularTitle:Шээсний тунадасыг бүрэн автомат анализатор болон Штернхеймер-Малбины будгаар будаж гэрлийн микроскопоор шинжилсэн дүнгийн харьцуулалт
- Author:
Tsatsralgerel M
1
;
Sunderya E
2
;
Delgertsetseg E
1
;
Munkhtulga L
3
;
Gantulga D
3
;
Batchimeg N
3
Author Information
1. Central Clinical Laboratory,МMJTH, MNUMS
2. BMS, MNUMS
3. DCL, SOM, MNUMS
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
sysmex UF-5000 analyser;
fluorescence flow cytometry method;
brightfield microscopy;
Sternheimer-Malbin;
Fuchs-Rosenthal counting chamber
- From:
Health Laboratory
2020;11(1):8-13
- CountryMongolia
- Language:Mongolian
-
Abstract:
Introduction:The traditional microscopic method is to visually count the elements in the urine, but it is difficult to distinguish between the cells because they are not stained. Sternheimer Malbin staining, on the other
hand, contains a variety of dyes that help to distinguish elements in urine sediment, improve the differentiation between cell nuclei and cytoplasm, provide more information about cell shape and image, and make it easier to differentiate kidney disease.
Objective:To study the results of the reading of a fully automatic urine sediment analyzer of compared with the Sternheimer Malbin stained bright field microscope method.
Research materials and methods:In this study included 150 people who served the MJTH of the MNUMS received permission to participate in the research. The urine sample collected in accordance with the standard operating instructions was counted by a fully automated analyzer and stained with Sternheimer Malbin dye and counted red cells (RBC), white blood cells (WBC), epithelial cells (EC), and renal epithelium (RTEC) under a microscope using a Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber.
Results:23.3% (n=35) of the respondents were male, 76.6% (n=115) were female, and the average age was 44.3±11.6. There 16.6% (25)/9.3% (14) of the RBCs were counted in excess of the reference volume when analyzed under an microscope stained with an automated urine sediment analyzer and Sternheimer-Malbin dye. For each WBC method, 45.4% (68)/41 (61)% and EC 24.7% (37)/23.3% (35) were counted above the reference volume. 90% (135)/32% (48) of the total samples were counted in excess of the RTEC reference volume. Comparing the performance of the automatic urine sediment analyzer with the light microscope method, the sensitivity and specificity were RBC-99.8%/99.1%, WBC-99.3%/99.6%, EC-99.7%/99.2, and RTEC-99.1%/99.2%. False-positive and false-negative results were rated for each RBC-99.9%/99.1%, WBC-99.3%/99.6%, EC 99.8%/99.2%, and RTEC-99.7%/99.9%, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was RBC, WBC, RTEC 1.0, or the test was useless, while the negative likelihood ratio was RBC was very different, WBC was slightly different, EC was very different, and RTEC was very different. Positive and negative predictive value indicators RBC-99.3%/99.4%, WBC-99.4%/99.4%, EC-99.4%/99.5, RTEC-99.2%/99.1%, optimality for RBC, WBC, EC 99.4%, RTEC -99.1%.
Conclusion:
1. The results of an automated urine sediment analyzer and a bright field microscope stained by Sternheimer Malbin were similar for red blood cells, white blood cells, and epithelial cells, but different for
renal tubular epithelial cells.
2. The resuls UF-5000 analyzer and bright field microscope analysis using Sternheimer Malbin dye were comparable.
- Full text:HL-2020-11(1)-8-13.pdf
