2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2007.05.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Urine sediment examination: A comparison of automated urinalysis systems and manual microscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

14
60
0
4

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
14
60
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…13 A good correlation to the above parameters were observed in our study. However, some limitations were considered in this study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…13 A good correlation to the above parameters were observed in our study. However, some limitations were considered in this study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Since intraand inter-observer reliability is a potential limitation, nephrology training programs should make a concerted effort to guarantee competency in the preparation and interpretation of urine microscopy [14]. This is even more critical going forward as many laboratories are employing automated technology to examine the urine [40,41], since the reliability of the automated systems for detection of casts is poor. Furthermore, nephrologists are superior in interpreting the urine sediment findings compared to laboratory personnel [42].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Urine microscopy fulfills all of these criteria. Furthermore, there is a trend toward automated microscopy at several hospitals in the United States (25,26). Although general clinicians depend on these automated systems, the performance of automated microscopy has not been thoroughly studied.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%