摘要
目的以传统的手工镜检作为标准方法,对Sysmex UF-1000i尿有形成分分析仪(简称UF-1000i)、AVE764B尿沉渣分析仪(简称AVE764B)的定量分析检测结果进行比对,分析2种不同检测原理的检测系统的优缺点。方法收集200例泌尿科、肾内科等患者新鲜尿液(1 h内)标本进行分析,对2个分析系统做评估。结果手工镜检与UF-1000i比较,红细胞:Y=1.173X-3.277,r=0.975,F=3 771.028,P=0.000;白细胞:Y=0.658X+35.842,r=0.973,F=4 759.543,P=0.000;上皮细胞:Y=0.604X+11.252,r=0.973,F=1 378.888,P=0.000。手工镜检与AVE764B比较,红细胞:Y=1.27X-41.857,r=0.973,F=3 585.945,P=0.000。白细胞:Y=0.741X-9.402,r=0.990,F=10 210.826,P=0.000;上皮细胞:Y=0.486X-9.852,r=0.959,F=2 271.304,P=0.000。结论 2个分析系统结果基本与手工镜检相符,相关性均较好,尿沉渣分析仪对尿有形成分有较好的识别分析能力,但实际工作中对部分特殊标本仍需人工镜检识别确定。
Objective To use the traditional manual microscopy as the standard method, to compare the results of quantitative analysis of Sysmex UF-1000i urine formed element analyzer （UF-1000i analyzer） and AVE764B urinary sediment analyzer （ AVE764B analyzer） and to analyze the 2 detection systems＇ strengths and weaknesses. Methods A total of 200 fresh （within 1 h ） urine samples of patients from Department of Urinary Surgery and Department of Urology were analyzed, and the 2 systems were evaluated. Results Manual microscopy and UF-1000i analyzer comparison showed that red blood cell： Y = 1. 173X - 3. 277, r = 0. 975, F = 3 771. 028, P = 0. 000 ; white blood ceil ： Y=0.658X＋35.842,r=0.973,F=4 759.543,P=0.000; epithelial cell： Y=0.604X ＋11.252,r=0.973,F= 1 378. 888,P = 0. 000. Manual microscopy and AVE764B analyzer comparison showed that red blood cell： Y = 1.27X - 41. 857, r = 0. 973, F = 3 585. 945, P = 0. 000 ; white blood cell： Y = 0. 741X - 9. 402, r = 0. 990, F = 10 210. 826, P = 0.000; epithelial cell： Y=0. 486X-9. 852,r =0. 959,F =2 27l. 304,P =0. 000. Conclusions The results of the 2 systems and manual microscopy had consistent correlation. Urinary sediment analyzer has good recognition analysis for urine formed elements, but for the actual work or some special specimens, manual microscopy identification is needed.
出处
《检验医学》
CAS
2013年第4期293-295,共3页
Laboratory Medicine
