Background: Urine microscopic analysis is hampered by its lack in standardisation and semi-quantitative reports, resulting in limited reliability. Automation of urinalysis could overcome these problems.
Methods: We compared the performance of the iQ200 with traditional microscopy and strip analysis in routine urinalysis. A total of 1482 routine samples, positive in dipstick testing, were evaluated for erythrocytes, leukocytes, casts, dysmorphic erythrocytes and bacteria using the iQ200 and traditional microscopy. The results of 320 of these samples were linked to underlying urological pathology as well as results from bacterial culturing.
Results: Analytically, the iQ200 surpasses traditional microscopy. The identification of casts and dysmorphic erythrocytes in routine samples improves when using the iQ200, although the sub-classification of casts required well-trained technicians. The auto-classification of particles was least reliable for yeast and bacterial cocci. The quantitative reports, and therefore the use of precise cut-off points allowed earlier and improved detection of urinary tract pathology.
Conclusions: The performance of the iQ200 is equal to traditional microscopy, but it strongly improves the reliability of urinalysis by standardisation, quantitative reports and improved workflow. From a clinical point of view, renewed attention and improvement of routine urinalysis aids in the efficient detection of renal and urinary tract pathology.