Accuracy of Dongjui analyzer for reducing the number of unnecessary urine cultures in an outpatient setting

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Dongjui DJ-8602 urinary analyzer for reducing the number of unnecessary urine cultures in patients with suspected urinary tract infection (UTI).

Methods: This study was designed as a retrospective study performed in patients with suspected UTI from August 1, 2018 to December 1, 2018. Clinical data, C reactive protein, blood hematologic counts were evaluated. Using positive culture results as the gold standard, the cut-off values by the receiver operating characteristic curve technique, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated.

Results: The median values of urine leukocyte levels were 31 cells/high power field (HPF) in the culture-positive group and 5 leukocytes/HPF in the culture-negative group, respectively. The area under the curve for leukocyte and bacteria count were 0.753 (95% Cl, 0.642 to 0.862) and 0.581 (95% Cl, 0.438 to 0.725), respectively. A leukocyte count ≥ 2 cells/HPF, resulting the best sensitivity of 96.3% (95% Cl: 81.03% to 99.48%) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.4% (95% Cl: 79.35% to 99.48%).

Conclusions: The use of the Dongjui DJ-8602 urinary sediment and chemistry analyzer did not accurately predict the outcome of urine cultures with an unsatisfactory sensitivity and NPVs of bacteria counts.

Keywords

• urinary tract infection
• urine culture
• Urinalysis
• ınstrumentation
• bacteriuria

References

1. 1. Grigoryan L, Trautner BW, Gupta K. Diagnosis and management of urinary tract infections in the outpatient setting: a review. JAMA 2014;312:1677-84.
2. 2. Huysal K, Budak YU, Karaca AU, Aydos M, Kahvecioğlu S, Bulut M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of uriSed automated urine microscopic sediment analyzer and dipstick parameters in predicting urine culture test results. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2013;23:211-7.
3. 3. Falbo R, Sala MR, Signorelli S, Venturi N, Signorini S, Brambilla P. Bacteriuria screening by automated whole-field-image-based microscopy reduces the number of necessary urine cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2012;50:1427-9.
4. 4. Ma J, Wang C, Yue J, Li M, Zhang H, Ma X, et al. Clinical laboratory urine analysis: comparison of the UriSed automated microscopic analyzer and the manual microscopy. Clin Lab 2013;59:1297-1303.
5. 5. Bignardi GE. Validation and verification of automated urine particle analysers. J Clin Pathol 2017;70:94-101.
6. 6. Shang YJ, Wang QQ, Zhang JR, Xu YL, Zhang WW, Chen Y, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of flow cytometry in urinary tract infection screening. Clin Chim Acta 2013;424:90-5.
7. 7. Budak YU, Huysal K. Comparison of three automated systems for urine chemistry and sediment analysis in routine laboratory practice. Clin Lab 2011;57:47-52.
8. 8. Pereiara P. Evaluation of rapid diagnostic test performance. In: Proof and Concepts in Rapid Diagnostic Tests and Technologies. Saxena SK (ed.), 1st ed. Inteck, Croatia; 2016:p.147.

9. 9. Zaman Z, Roggeman S, Verhaegen J. Unsatisfactory performance of flow cytometer F-100 and urine strips in predicting outcome of urine cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:4169-71.
10. 10. Graham JC, Galloway A. ACP Best Practice No 167: the laboratory diagnosis of urinary tract infection. J Clin Pathol 2001;54:911-9.
11. 11. Brilha S, Proença H, Cristino JM, Hänscheid T. Use of a flow cytometry (Sysmex) UF-100) to screen for positive urine cultures: in search for the ideal cut-off. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:289-92.
12. 12. Kocer D, Sariguzel FM, Ciraci MZ, Karakukcu C, Oz L. Diagnostic accuracy of a new urinalysis system, DongJiu, for diagnosis of urinary tract infection. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2015;45:686-91.
13. 13. McHugh LC, Snyder K, Yager TD. The effect of uncertainty in patient classification on diagnostic performance estimations. PLoS One 2019;14:e0217146.
14. 14. Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Paediatr 2007;96:338-41.
15. 15. European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine. European urinalysis guidelines. 2000;231:1-86.
16. 16. Oyaert M, Delanghe J. Progress in automated urinalysis. Ann Lab Med 2019;39:15-22.
17. 17. Stürenburg E, Kramer J, Schön G, Cachovan G, Sobottka I. Detection of significant bacteriuria by use of the iQ200 automated urine microscope. J Clin Microbiol 2014;52:2855-60.
18. 18. Sterry-Blunt RE, S Randall K, J Doughton M, H Aliyu S, A Enoch D. Screening urine samples for the absence of urinary tract infection using the sediMAX automated microscopy analyser. J Med Microbiol 2015;64:605-9.
19. 19. Kocer D, Sarıguzel FM, Karakukcu C. Cutoff values for bacteria and leukocytes for urine sediment analyzer FUS200 in culture-positive urinary-tract infections. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2014;74:414-7.
20. 20. Zaman Z, Fogazzi GB, Garigali G, Croci MD, Bayer G, Kranicz T. Urine sediment analysis: analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX – a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:147-54.
21. 21. Ducharme J, Neilson S, Ginn JL. Can urine cultures and reagent test strips be used to diagnose urinary tract infection in elderly emergency department patients without focal urinary symptoms? 2007;9:87-92.
22. 22. Marques AG, Doi AM, Pasternak J, Damascena MDS, França CN, Martino MDV. Performance of the dipstick screening test as a predictor of negative urine culture. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 2017;15:34-9.
23. 23. Dadzie I, Quansah E, Dakorah MP, Abiade V Takyi-Amuah E, Adusei R. The effectiveness of dipstick for the detection of urinary tract infection. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2019;2019:8642628.
24. 24. Krongvorakul J, Phundhusuwannakul S, Santanirand P, Kunakorn M. A flow cytometric urine analyzer for bacteria and white blood cell counts plus urine dispstick test for rapid screening of bacterial urinary tract infection. Asian Biomed 2012;6:601-8.