UriSed 3 and UX-2000 automated urine sediment analyzers vs manual microscopic method: A comparative performance analysis.

BackgroundFully automated urine analyzers now play an important role in routine urinalysis in most laboratories. The recently introduced UriSed 3 has a new automated digital imaging urine sediment analyzer with a phase contrast feature. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the UriSed 3 and UX-2000 automated urine sediment analyzers with each other and with the results of the manual microscopic method. MethodsTwo hundred seventy-seven (277) samples of leftover fresh urine from our hospital's central laboratory were evaluated by two automated urine sediment analyzersUriSed 3 and UX-2000. The results of urine sediment analysis were compared between the two automated analyzers and against the results of the manual microscopic method. ResultsBoth devices demonstrated excellent agreement for quantitative measurement of red blood cells and white blood cells. UX-2000 had a lower coefficient correlation and demonstrated slightly lower agreement for squamous epithelial cells. Regarding semiquantitative analysis, both machines demonstrated very good concordance, with all applicable rates within one grade difference of the other machine. UriSed 3 had higher sensitivity for small round cells, while UX-2000 showed greater sensitivity for detecting bacteria and hyaline casts. UriSed 3 demonstrated slightly better specificity, especially in the detection of hyaline and pathological casts. ConclusionsBoth instruments had nearly similar performance for red blood cells and white blood cells measurement. UriSed 3 was more reliable for measuring squamous epithelial cells and small round cells, while the UX-2000 was more accurate for detecting bacteria and hyaline casts.