Abstract

Background: Automated microscopic platforms are increasingly used in clinical laboratories for rapid analysis of samples. However, it is important to present the results quantitatively or semiquantitatively because automated platforms use various technologies for analysis as well as different sediment preparation methods. The results of cell counting using an on screen image review program for the cobas u 701 analyzer (Roche Diagnostics Interna-tional, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) differed from those obtained by manual microscopic examination (MME). This study was performed to investigate the difference of results among analyzer, on-screen image review and MME. Methods: Freshly collected urine specimens from outpatients were used. We calculated the mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval for red and white blood cell (RBC/WBC) quantitative results obtained using the cobas u 701 analyzer. These results were compared to those obtained by manual counting. RBC and WBC counts determined with the cobas u 701 analyzer were compared to those obtained by MME per unit field.
Results: The semiquantitative results of MME were graded as 0 - 2, 3 - 5, 6 - 10, 11 - 20, 21 - 30, and many or numerous cells/high power field (HPF). The RBC and WBC counts determined by image analyses showed the tendency to be one grade higher than those from MME in the range of 3 to 5/HPF to many/HPF. The results of nearly all samples with 0 - 2/HPF and numerous/HPF for RBC and WBC counts were consistent with the grade found by MME.
Conclusions: The one-grade difference may have been caused by the differences of preanalytical factors in the sample volume, centrifugal force, urine concentration ratio, or sediment volume/area of the slide. When reporting the results of image analyses, RBC and WBC counts should be raised by one grade to compensate for MME. Each laboratory needs to verify the on-screen review of images corresponding to the microscopic field of view according to the clinical laboratory's specific preanalytical practices.

DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2021.210105