Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Esame fisico, chimico e morfologico delle urine: proposta di linee guida per la fase analitica del Gruppo Intersocietario Analisi delle Urine (GIAU)

Physical, chemical and morphological urine examination guidelines for the analytical phase from the Intersociety Urinalysis Group

  • Rassegna
  • Published:
La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio - Italian Journal of Laboratory Medicine

Riassunto

Mediante queste linee guida (LG) il Gruppo Intersocietario Analisi delle Urine (GIAU) mira a stimolare i seguenti aspetti:

  • miglioramento e standardizzazione dell’approccio analitico all’esame chimico-fisico e morfologico delle urine (ECMU);

  • sottolineare il valore aggiunto all’ECMU derivante dall’introduzione di analizzatori automatizzati per lo studio della morfologia delle frazione corpuscolata delle urine;

  • miglioramento dell’analisi chimica delle urine, con particolare riguardo al riesame del significato diagnostico dei parametri tradizionalmente valutati nell’analisi mediante dip-stick insieme con una crescente consapevolezza dei limiti di sensibilità e specificità di questo metodo analitico;

  • aumentare la consapevolezza dell’importanza delle competenze professionali nel campo della morfologia urinaria e dell’importanza dell’interazione con i clinici;

  • implementare una politica di valutazione della qualità analitica utilizzando, oltre ai tradizionali controlli interni ed esterni, un programma per la valutazione della competenza morfologica;

  • stimolare l’industria diagnostica del settore a concentrare gli sforzi sulla ricerca e sullo sviluppo di metodologie strumentali sempre più idonee alle esigenze di diagnosi clinica.

La speranza è rivalutare l’enorme potenziale diagnostico dell’ECMU, attraverso l’esecuzione di un esame delle urine personalizzato in base alle esigenze diagnostiche di ogni paziente.

Summary

With these guidelines the Intersociety Urinalysis Group (GIAU) aims to stimulate the following aspects:

  • improvement and standardization of the analytical approach to physical, chemical and morphological urine examination (ECMU);

  • emphasize the value added to ECMU by automated analyzers for the study of the morphology of the corpuscular fraction urine;

  • improvement of the chemical analysis of urine with particular regard to the reconsideration of the diagnostic significance of the parameters that are traditionally evaluated in dip-stick analysis together with an increasing awareness of the limits of sensitivity and specificity of this analytical method;

  • increase the awareness of the importance of professional skills in the field of urinary morphology and their relationships with the clinicians;

  • implement a policy of evaluation of the analytical quality by using, in addition to traditional internal and external controls, a program for the evaluation of morphological competence;

  • stimulate the diagnostics industry to focus research efforts and development methodology and instrumental catering to the needs clinical diagnosis.

The hope is to revalue the enormous potential diagnostic of ECMU, implementing a urinalysis on personalized diagnostic needs that each patient brings with it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Bibliografia

  1. Grilli R, Penna A, Zola P et al. (1996) Physician’s view of practice guidelines. Soc Sci Med 43:1283–1287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Formoso G, Liberati A, Magrini N (2001) Practice guidelines: useful and «participative» method? Survey of Italian physicians by professional setting. Arch Intern Med 161:2037–2042

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burnand B (1999) Clinical practice guidelines. A public health perspective. Eur J Public Health 9:83–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Coomarasamy A (2004) Searching for evidence to inform clinical practice. Curr Obstet Gynecol 14:142–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lilford R, Richardson A, Stevens A et al. (2001) Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners. Health Technol Assess 15:1–57

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grilli R (2002) AGREE uno strumento per la valutazione della qualità delle linee guida. Dossier 60 Bologna. Agenzia Sanitaria Regionale dell’Emilia-Romagna

  7. European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine (2000) European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 231(Suppl.):1–86

    Google Scholar 

  8. CLSI GP-16 A3 (2009) Urinalysis and Collection, Transportation, and Preservation of Urine Specimens; Approved Guideline, vol 29, 3rd edn, pp 4–21

    Google Scholar 

  9. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2006) Management of suspected bacterial urinary tract infection in adults. A National Clinical Guideline. Edinburgh (Scotland), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). SIGN publication n 88

  10. Kuori T, Gyory A, Rowan M (2003) ISLH recommended reference procedure for the enumeration of particles in urine. Lab Hematol 9:58–63

    Google Scholar 

  11. Linea Guida Regione Emilia Romagna (2010) Infezioni delle vie urinarie nell’adulto. Dossier 190

  12. British Columbia Health Service (2005) Guidelines for macroscopic and microscopic urinalysis and investigation of urinary tract infections. www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/msp/protoguides (Accesso: luglio 2016)

  13. Atkins D, Best D, Briss P et al. (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490–1495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH et al. (2006) Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from American College of chest physicians task force. Chest 129:174–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Levey AS, de Jong PE, Coresh J et al. (2011) The definition, classification, and prognosis of chronic kidney disease: a KDIGO Controversies Conference report. Kidney Int 80:17–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2007) Prevalence of chronic kidney disease and associated risk factors—United States, 1999–2004. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep 56:161–165. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a2. (Accesso: luglio 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zoccali C, Kramer A, Jager KJ (2010) Chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease—a review produced to contribute to the report “the status of health in the European union: towards a healthier Europe”. NDT Plus 3:213–224

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gambaro G, Yabarek T, Graziani MS et al. (2010) Prevalence of CKD in northeastern Italy: results of the INCIPE study and comparison with NHANES. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5:1946–1953

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Chacko KM, Feinberg LE (2007) Laboratory screening at preventive health exams: trend of testing, 1978–2004. Am J Prev Med 32:59–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Woolhandler S, Pels RJ, Bor DH et al. (1989) Dipstick urinalysis screening of asymptomatic adults for urinary tract disorders. I. Hematuria and proteinuria. JAMA 262:1214–1219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pels RJ, Bor DH, Woolhandler S et al. (1989) Dipstick urinalysis screening of asymptomatic adults for urinary tract disorders. II. Bacteriuria. JAMA 262:1221–1224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yuno T, Hisada Y, Nishimura Y (2013) A review of urinary examination—what medical practice expects now and what urinary examinations have to provide in the future. Rinsho Byori 61:622–628

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cho BS, Hahn WH, Cheong HI et al. (2013) A nationwide study of mass urine screening tests on Korean school children and implications for chronic kidney disease management. Clin Exp Nephrol 17:205–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brunzel Nl (2003) Fundamentals of Urine & Body Fluid Analysis, 3th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  25. Prochazka AV, Lundahl K, Pearson W et al. (2005) Support of evidence-based guidelines for the annual physical examination: a survey of primary care providers. Arch Intern Med 165:1347–1352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Simerville J, Maxted W, Pahira J (2005) Urinalysis: A Comprehensive Review. Am Fam Phys 71:1153–1162

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lippi G, Becan-McBride K, Behúlová D et al. (2013) Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust. Clin Chem Lab Med 51:229–241

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McNulty CA, Thomas M, Bowen J et al. (2008) Improving the appropriateness of laboratory submissions for urinalysis from general practice. Fam Pract 25:272–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Manoni F, Gessoni G, Alessio MG et al. (2011) Mid-stream vs first-voided urine collection by using automated analyzers for particle examination in healthy subjects: an Italian multi center study. Clin Chem Lab Med 50:679–684

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rao PK, Gao T, Pohl M et al. (2010) Dipstick pseudohematuria: unnecessary consultation and evaluation. J Urol 183:560–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mc Bride L (1997) Textbook of Urinalysis and Body Fluids: A Clinical Approach. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kanbay M, Kasapoglu B, Perazella MA (2010) Acute tubular necrosis and pre-renal acute kidney injury: utility of urine microscopy in their evaluation—a systematic review. Int Urol Nephrol 42:425–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Perazella MA, Coca SG, Hall IE et al. (2010) Urine microscopy is associated with severity and worsening of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5:402–408

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Mundt L, Shanahan K (2011) Graff’s Textbook of Urinalysis and Body Fluids. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ross D, Neely A (1982) Textbook of Urinalysis and Body Fluids. Appleton & Lange, East Norwalk

    Google Scholar 

  36. Braeckman L, Haak E, Peremans L (2012) Routine dipstick urinalysis in daily practice of Belgian occupational physicians. Arch Public Health 70:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rigby D, Gray K (2005) Understanding urine testing. Nurs Times 101:60–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Berry J (2003) Microalbuminuria testing in diabetes: is a dipstick as effective as laboratory tests? Br J Community Nurs 8:267–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Patel HD, Livsey SA, Swann RA et al. (2005) Can urine dipstick testing for urinary tract infection at point of care reduce laboratory workload? J Clin Pathol 58:951–954

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. KDIGO (March 2012). Clinical practice guideline for acute Kidney injury. Kidney Int Suppl 2(1). doi:10.1038/Kisup.2012.01

  41. KDIGO (January 2013). Clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management chronic Kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl 3(1). doi:10.1038/Kisup.2012-78

  42. Ruggenenti P, Porrini E, Motterlini N et al. (2012) Measurable Urinary Albumin Predicts Cardiovascular Risk among Normoalbuminuric Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. J Am Soc Nephrol 23:1717–1724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) (2013) ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 31:1281–1357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Graziani MS, Secchiero S, Terreni A et al. (2015) La diagnostica di laboratorio della malattia renale cronica in Italia: armonizzare è d’obbligo. Biochim Clin 39:617–626

    Google Scholar 

  45. Graziani M, Lo Cascio C, Caldini A et al. (2007) Indagine conoscitiva sulla determinazione quantitativa della albumina nelle urine nei laboratori italiani. Biochim Clin 31:290–296

    Google Scholar 

  46. Graziani M, Caldini A, per il Gruppo di Studio Intersocietario SIBioC-SIMeL Diabete Mellito (2011) Indicazioni per la misura dell’albumina nelle urine per l’accertamento e il monitoraggio della nefropatia diabetica. Biochim Clin 35:127–130

    Google Scholar 

  47. Turchetti E, Fasi R (1998) Elementi di Fisica, 1a edizione. Zanichelli, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  48. Manoni F, Fornasiero L, Ercolin M et al. (2009) Laboratory diagnosis of renal failure: urine conductivity and tubular function. Minerva Urol Nefrol 61:17–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang JM, Wen CY, Lin CY et al. (2014) Evaluating the performance of urine conductivity as screening for early stage chronic kidney disease. Clin Lab 60:635–643

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. FazilMarickar YM (2010) Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids in urine. Urol Res 38:233–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Sing RI, Singal RK (2012) What is significant hematuria for the primary care physician? Can J Urol 19(Suppl. 1):36–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Higashihara E, Nishiyama T, Horie S et al. (2008) Hematuria: definition and screening test methods. Int J Urol 15:281–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. McDonald MM, Swagerty D, Wetzel L (2006) Assessment of microscopic hematuria in adults. Am Fam Phys 15:1748–1754

    Google Scholar 

  54. Cohen RA, Brown RS (2003) Clinical practice. Microscopic hematuria. N Engl J Med 348:2330–2338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ma J, Wang C, Yue J et al. (2013) Clinical laboratory urine analysis: comparison of the UriSed automated microscopic analyzer and the manual microscopy. Clin Lab 59:1297–1303

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Boven LA, Kemperman H, Demir A (2012) A comparative analysis of the Iris iQ200 with manual microscopy as a diagnostic tool for dysmorphic erythrocytes in urine. Clin Chem Lab Med 250:751–753

    Google Scholar 

  57. Khasriya R, Khan S, Lunawat R et al. (2010) The inadequacy of urinary dipstick and microscopy as surrogate markers of urinary tract infection in urological outpatients with lower urinary tract symptoms without acute frequency and dysuria. J Urol 183:1843–1847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Aspevall O, Hallander H, Gant V et al. (2001) European guidelines for urinalysis: a collaborative document produced by European clinical microbiologists and clinical chemists under ECLM in collaboration with ESCMID. Clin Microbiol Infect 7:173–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Marschal M, Wienke M, Hoering S et al. (2012) Evaluation of 3 different rapid automated systems for diagnosis of urinary tract infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 72:125–130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kouri T, Malminiemi O, Penders J et al. (2008) Limits of preservation of samples for urine strip tests and particle counting. Clin Chem Lab Med 46:703–713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fabbro C, Darolles J, Rault JP (2011) Preservation of urine samples for UF 1000i analysis. Ann Biol Clin 69:588–592

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Komarova O, van derMeer W, Levtchenko E et al. (2003) Effective chemical preservation of morphology of urinary erythrocytes. Pediatr Nephrol 18:665–666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kouri T, Vuotari L, Pohjavaara S et al. (2002) Preservation of urine for flow cytometric and visual microscopic testing. Clin Chem 48:900–905

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. del Rosario-Rodríguez M, Rodríguez-Moreno I, León MT et al. (1999) A new chemical preservative that permits analysis of urine sediment for light microscopic examination 12 h after emission. Nephron 82:65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Mody L, Juthani-Mehta M (2014) Urinary tract infections in older women: a clinical review. JAMA 311:844–854

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Sundvall PD, Gunnarsson RK (2009) Evaluation of dipstick analysis among elderly residents to detect bacteriuria: a cross-sectional study in 32 nursing homes. BMC Geriatr 9:32–38

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Kodikara H, Seneviratne H, Kaluarachchi A et al. (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of nitrite dipstick testing for the detection of bacteriuria of pregnancy. Public Health 123:393–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. American Diabetes Association (2015) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2015. Diabetes Care 38(Suppl. 1):S1–S94

    Google Scholar 

  69. Shivaraj G, Prakash B, Shruthi S et al. (2010) Markers of renal function tests. N Am J Med Sci 2:170–173

    Google Scholar 

  70. Edmund L, David J (2006) Kidney function tests. In: Carl AB, Edward R, David E (eds) Tietz Textbook of clinical chemistry and molecular diagnostics, 4th edn. Elsevier, New Delhi, pp 797–808

    Google Scholar 

  71. Arvind B, Anurag B, Shina M (2005) Approach to Renal Tubular Disorders. Indian J Pediatr 72:771–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Fogazzi GB, Saglimbeni L, Banfi G et al. (2005) Urinary sediment features in proliferative and non-proliferative glomerular diseases. J Nephrol 18:703–710

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Emerson JF, Emerson SS (2005) Evaluation of a standardized procedure for microscopic cell counts in body fluids. J Clin Lab Anal 19:267–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Fogazzi GB, Grignani S (1998) Urine microscopic analysis an art abandoned by nephrologists? Nephrol Dial Transplant 13:2485–2487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Fogazzi GB, Cameron JS (1996) Urinary microscopy from the seventeenth century to the present day. Kidney Int 50:1058–1068

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Fogazzi GB, Cameron JS (1995) The introduction of urine microscopy into clinical practice. Nephrol Dial Transplant 10:410–413

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Tsai JJ, Yeun JY, Kumar VA et al. (2005) Comparison and interpretation of urinalysis performed by a nephrologist versus a hospital-based clinical laboratory. Am J Kidney Dis 46:820–829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Fogazzi GB, Grignani S, Colucci P (1999) Urinary microscopy as seen by nephrologists. Clin Chem Lab Med 36:919–924

    Google Scholar 

  79. Fogazzi GB, Garigali G (2014) Urinalysis. In: Johnson RJ et al. (eds) Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology, 5th edn. Elsevier/Saunders, Amsterdam/Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  80. Fogazzi GB (2010) The urinary sediment an integrated view, 3rd edn. Masson, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  81. Hisano S, Sasatomi Y, Kiyoshi Y et al. (2001) Macrophage subclasses and proliferation in childhood IgA glomerulonephritis. Am J Kidney Dis 37:712–719

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Shiozawa S (2000) Participation of macrophages in glomerular sclerosis through the expression and activation of matrix metalloproteinases. Pathol Int 50:441–457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Fogazzi GB, Ferrari B, Garigali G et al. (2012) Urinary sediment findings in acute interstitial nephritis. Am J Kidney Dis 60:330–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Spinelli D, Consonni D, Garigali G et al. (2013) Waxy casts in the urinary sediment of patients with different types of glomerular diseases: results of a prospective study. Clin Chim Acta 424:47–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Henschkowski J, Vogt B (2006) Crystalluria. Ther Umsch 63:591–594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Baggio B, Giannossi ML, Medici L et al. (2012) X-ray microdiffraction and urine: a new analysis method of crystalluria. J Xray Sci Technol 20:489–498

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Van Noord C, Wulkan RW, van den Dorpel MA (2012) Crystalluria. Neth J Med 70:84–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Verdesca S, Fogazzi GB, Garigali G et al. (2011) Crystalluria: prevalence, different types of crystals and the role of infrared spectroscopy. Clin Chem Lab Med 49:515–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Baumann JM, Affolter B, Meyer R (2010) Crystal sedimentation and stone formation. Urol Res 38:21–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Marickar YM, Salim A (2009) Photmicrography of urinary deposits in stone clinic. Urol Res 37:359–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Fazil-Marickar YM, Lekshmi PR, Varma L et al. (2009) Elemental distribution analysis of urinary crystals. Urol Res 37:277–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Daudon M, Jungers P, Lacour B (2004) Clinical value of crystalluria study. Ann Biol Clin 62:379–393

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Gruppo di Studio Multidisciplinare per la Calcolosi Renale (2010) Percorso diagnostico-terapeutico per il paziente con calcolosi urinaria. G Ital Nefrolog 27:282–289

    Google Scholar 

  94. Scoffone C, Zattoni F (2009) Linee Guida 2009 Comitato SIU (Società Italiana di Urologia) Linee Guida

  95. Linee Guida per la Calcolosi delle vie urinarie (2007) AURO.it (Associazione Urologi Ospedalieri Italiani)

  96. Goldfarb DS, Arowojolu O (2013) Metabolic evaluation of first-time and recurrent stone formers. Urol Clin N Am 40:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Bottini PV, Martinez MH, Garlipp CR (2014) Urinalysis: comparison between microscopic analysis and a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment instrument. Clin Lab 60:693–697

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Manda-Handzlik A, Sztefko K, Zając A et al. (2016) UriSed—Preliminary reference intervals and optimal method for urine sediment analysis in newborns and infants. Clin Biochem 49:909–914

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Yüksel H, Kiliç E, Ekinci A et al. (2013) Comparison of fully automated urine sediment analyzers H800-FUS100 and LabUMat-UriSed with manual microscopy. J Clin Lab Anal 27:312–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Martinez MH, Bottini PV, Levy CE et al. (2013) UriSed as a screening tool for presumptive diagnosis of urinary tract infection. Clin Chim Acta 21:77–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Anderlini R, Manieri G, Lucchi C et al. (2015) Automated urinalysis with expert review for incidental identification of atypical urothelial cells: an anticipated bladder carcinoma diagnosis. Clin Chim Acta 451:252–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Zaman Z, Fogazzi GB, Garigali G et al. (2010) Urine sediment analysis: Analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX—a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser. Clin Chim Acta 411:147–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Budak YU, Huysal K (2011) Comparison of three automated systems for urine chemistry and sediment analysis in routine laboratory practice. Clin Lab 57:47–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Akin OK, Serdar MA, Cizmeci Z et al. (2009) Comparison of LabUMat-with-UriSed and iQ200 fully automatic urine sediment analysers with manual urine analysis. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 53:139–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Park J, Kim J (2008) Evaluation of iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Korean J Lab Med 28:267–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Mayo S, Acevedo D, Quiñones-Torrelo C et al. (2008) Clinical laboratory automated urinalysis: comparison among automated microscopy, flow cytometry, two test strips analyzers, and manual microscopic examination of the urine sediments. J Clin Lab Anal 22:262–270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Chien TI, Kao JT, Liu HL et al. (2007) Urine sediment examination: a comparison of automated urinalysis systems and manual microscopy. Clin Chim Acta 384:28–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Linko S, Kouri TT, Toivonen E et al. (2006) Analytical performance of the Iris iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyzer. Clin Chim Acta 372:54–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Du J, Xu J, Wang F et al. (2015) Establishment and development of the personalized criteria for microscopic review following multiple automated routine urinalysis systems. Clin Chim Acta 444:221–228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Xiang D, Cong Y, Wang C et al. (2012) Development of microscopic review criteria by comparison urine flow cytometer, strip and manual microscopic examination. Clin Lab 58:979–985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Fabbro C, Darolles J, Rault JP (2011) Evaluation of the performances of the UF-1000i automated urine analyzer. Ann Biol Clin 69:431–439

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Lee W, Ha JS, Ryoo NH (2016) Comparison of the automated cobas u 701 urine microscopy and UF-1000i flow cytometry systems and manual microscopy in the examination of urine sediments. J Clin Lab Anal. doi:10.1002/jcla.21919

    Google Scholar 

  113. Kadkhoda K, Manickam K, Degagne P et al. (2011) UF-1000i flow cytometry is an effective screening method for urine specimens. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 69:130–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Jiang T, Chen P, Ouyang J et al. (2011) Urine particles analysis: performance evaluation of Sysmex UF-1000i and comparison among urine flow cytometer, dipstick, and visual microscopic examination. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 71:30–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Manoni F, Tinello A, Fornasiero L et al. (2010) Urine particle evaluation: a comparison between the UF-1000i and quantitative microscopy. Clin Chem Lab Med 48:1107–1111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. National Health Service (2010) Evidence Review. Automated Urine Screening Systems. CAO 10030 March

  117. Westgard JO, Westgard SA (2016) Quality control review: implementing a scientifically based quality control system. Ann Clin Biochem 53:32–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Harel O, Schisterman EF, Vexler A et al. (2008) Monitoring quality control: can we get better data? Epidemiology 19:621–627

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Westgard JO (2004) Design of internal quality control for reference value studies. Clin Chem Lab Med 42:863–867

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Westgard JO (2003) Internal quality control: planning and implementation strategies. Ann Clin Biochem 40:593–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Westgard JO (1999) The need for a system of quality standards for modern quality management. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 59:483–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Ottomano C, Ceriotti F, Galeazzi M et al. (2008) Linee guida per la gestione dei programmi di Controllo di Qualità Interno. Biochim Clin 32:102–121

    Google Scholar 

  123. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Ceriotti F, Secchiero S, Sciacovelli L et al. (2011) Linee guida per la gestione dei Programmi di Valutazione Esterna di Qualità. Biochim Clin 35:107–126

    Google Scholar 

  125. Sciacovelli L, Secchiero S, Zardo L et al. (2010) The role of External Quality Assessment. Biochem Med 2:160–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Secchiero S, Sciacovelli L, Faggian A et al. (2013) Gli strumenti di assicurazione della Qualità in Medicina di Laboratorio: i Programmi di VEQ e gli Indicatori di Qualità del Centro di Ricerca Biomedica. Ligand Assay 18:41–53

    Google Scholar 

  127. Kouri T, Laippala P, Kutter D et al. (1999) Quality specifications for ordinal scale measurements with multiproperty (multiple) urine test strips. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 59:523–526

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Schürer-Maly C, Wood WG, Falbo R et al. (2013) An educational web-based external quality assessment outcome and evaluation: first experiences with urinary sediment and hemostaseology. Clin Lab 59:1061–1069

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Wood WG, Schwarz P, Illigen D et al. (2013) Experience with an alternative form of samples for external quality assessment of urinary sediment (visual sample EQA). Clin Lab 59:875–883

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Fogazzi GB, Secchiero S, Consonni D et al. (2010) An Italian external quality assessment (EQA) program on urinary sediment. Clin Chim Acta 411:859–867

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Secchiero S, Fogazzi GB (2009) Quality control programs for urinary sediment (Capitolo 8). In: The Urinary Sediment. An integrated view, 3th edn. Masson, Milano, pp 233–245

    Google Scholar 

  132. Fogazzi GB, Secchiero S, Garigali G et al. (2014) Evaluation of Clinical cases in an Italian External Quality Assessment Scheme (EQAS) for the urinary sediment. Clin Clem Lab Med 52:845–852

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Secchiero S, Fogazzi GB, Manoni F et al. (2015) The Italian External Quality Assessment (EQA) program: results of the period 2012–2015. Clin Clem Lab Med 53(Suppl):S1495–S1502

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Manoni F, Caleffi A, Gessoni G et al. (2011) L’esame chimico, morfologico e colturale delle urine: proposta di linee guida per una procedura standardizzata della fase pre-analitica. Riv Ital Med Lab 7:25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Manoni F, Gessoni G, Alessio MG et al. (2014) Gender’s equality in evaluation of urine particles: Results of a multicenter study of the Italian Urinalysis Group. Clin Chim Acta 427:1–5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Manoni F, Gessoni G, Caleffi A et al. (2013) Pediatric reference values for urine particles quantification by using automated flow cytometer: results of a multicenter study of Italian urinalysis group. Clin Biochem 46:1820–1824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Shayanfar N, Tobler U, von Eckardstein A et al. (2007) Automated urinalysis: first experiences and a comparison between the Iris iQ200 urine microscopy system, the Sysmex UF-100 flow cytometer and manual microscopic particle counting. Clin Chem Lab Med 45:1251–1256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Graziani MS, Gambaro G, Mantovani L et al. (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of a reagent strip for assessing urinary albumin excretion in the general population. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24:1490–1494

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Camporese A (2014) L’evoluzione della citofluorimetria urinaria in microbiologia, da metodo di screening a insostituibile strumento per la validazione clinica dell’esame delle urine. Riv Ital Med Lab 10:242–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Caleffi A, Manoni F, Alessio MG et al. (2010) Quality in extra analytical phases of urinalysis. Biochem Med 20:179–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Manoni.

Ethics declarations

Conflitti di interesse

Nessuno.

Studi condotti su esseri umani e animali

L’articolo non contiene alcuno studio eseguito su esseri umani e su animali da parte degli autori.

Additional information

Questo articolo è pubblicato simultaneamente da Biochimica Clinica, Giornale Italiano di Nefrologia e La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio.

This article is being published simultaneously in Biochimica Clinica, Giornale Italiano di Nefrologia and La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio.

Il Gruppo Intersocietario (SIPMeL, SIBioC, SIN) Analisi delle Urine è formato da: M.G. Alessio (Bergamo), R. Anderlini (Modena), I. Bountis (Monselice), G. Brunori (Trento), A. Caleffi (Parma), D. Coseddu (Torino), B. Creanza (Gravina di Puglia), N. Di Pace Nunzia (Gravina di Puglia), G. Di Rienzo (Gravina di Puglia), M.G. Epifani (Padova), G.B. Fogazzi (Milano), G. Gambaro (Roma), G. Gessoni (Chioggia), L. Gesualdo (Bari), M. Guida (Gravina di Puglia), A. Liverani (Monselice) F. Manoni (Monselice), C. Ottomano (Monza), M. Parimbelli (Bergamo), A. Perego (Monselice), B. Pieretti (Fano), D. Poz (S. Daniele), G. Saccani (Bussolengo), M. Schinella (Rovereto), S. Secchiero (Padova), F. Sirianni (Palmanova), B. Talento (Nocera Inferiore), S. Valverde (Chioggia), D. Vannoni (Siena), M. Vizzini (Rovereto), T. Zorzan (Monselice).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manoni, F., Gessoni, G., Fogazzi, G.B. et al. Esame fisico, chimico e morfologico delle urine: proposta di linee guida per la fase analitica del Gruppo Intersocietario Analisi delle Urine (GIAU). Riv Ital Med Lab 12, 134–164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13631-016-0127-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13631-016-0127-5

Parole chiave

Keywords

Navigation