RESUMO
Objective: To compare the performance of the Urised, an image-based automated urine sediment analyzer, against the manual method in urine sediment analysis. Methods: The study was carried out in the Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University in November 2008. One hundred and one urine samples were measured by both automated urine sediment analyzer “Urised” and manual method routinely done in the laboratory. Results from the both methods were compared for their correlation or agreement. Precision, linearity, and carry over of the Urised were also determined. Results: Urised and the conventional manual examination were in good correlations for the following parameters: red blood cell (RBC), white blood cell (WBC), crystals, bacteria, and mucus. Although the squamous epithelial cell (SQE) analysed from both methods showed excellent correlation, they were not statistically significant. For pathologic casts, the statistics showed good agreement between the two methods, but the ability to detect pathologic casts of the Urised was less than the manual method. No yeast was found in any specimen included in this study, therefore this parameter could not be evaluated. Poor agreement between both methods for evaluation of small round cell (SRC) and hyaline casts was noted. Conclusion: Urised was reliable in measurement of some certain urinary parameters such as RBC, WBC, crystals, bacteria, and mucus. However, the examination by experienced technicians was suggested for SRC, hyaline casts, and pathologic casts.