Reporting categories in urine test strip analysis: Croatian survey and call for action.

INTRODUCTION: In line with the national recommendations, Croatian medical laboratories report urine test strip qualitative analysis results using a categorized scale with defined number of categories. Since concentration ranges for measured analytes have not been provided by national professional authority, it is up to the laboratories to define their own categories. The aim of study was to assess the comparability of concentrations assigned to different categories used in reporting the results of dipstick urinalysis in Croatian laboratories. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire was e-mailed to all Croatian medical laboratories (N = 195). They were asked to provide the number of categories and respective concentrations for each parameter. Data were described as numbers and percentages. Values above the upper reference range limit, which were assigned as normal and/or trace category, were considered as false negative. RESULTS: Response rate was 71% (139/195). Seventy percent (98/139) of laboratories report their results with either higher (77/98; 79%) or lower (2/98; 2%) number of categories, relative to the national recommendation, whereas 19/98 (19%) report their results as concentrations. Great heterogeneity of reporting categories was observed. Multiple categories were assigned to same concentrations and there was a large overlap of concentrations for most categories. Considerable proportion of laboratories reported false negative results for ketones (42%), leukocytes (30%) and glucose (21%). CONCLUSIONS: The concentrations assigned to categories used to report the results of dipstick urinalysis are not comparable among Croatian medical laboratories. There is an urgent need for harmonization and standardization of reporting the results of urine dipstick analysis in Croatia.

Analytical verification of 12 most commonly used urine dipsticks in Croatia: comparability, repeatability and accuracy.

INTRODUCTION: Variability among manufacturers of urine dipsticks, respective to their accuracy and measurement range, may lead to diagnostic errors and thus create a serious risk for the patient. Our aims were to determine the level of agreement between 12 most commonly used urine dipsticks in Croatia, examine their accuracy for glucose and total protein and to test their repeatability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 75 urine samples were used to examine comparability and accuracy of 12 dipstick brands (Combur 10 TestM, ChoiceLine 10, Combur 10 TestUX, ComboStik 10M, ComboStik 11M, CombiScreen 11SYS, CombiScreen 10SL, Combina 13, Combina 11S, Combina 10M, UriGnost 11, Multistix 10SG). Agreement between each dipstick and the reference (Combur 10 TestM) was expressed as kappa coefficient (acceptable κ ≥ 0.80). Accuracy for glucose and total protein was tested by comparison with quantitative measurements on analysers: AU400 (Beckman Coulter, USA), Cobas 6000 c501 (Roche Diagnostics, Germany) and Architect plus c4000 (Abbott, USA). Repeatability was assessed on 20 replicates (acceptable > 90%). RESULTS: Best agreement was achieved for glucose, total protein and nitrite (11/11, k > 0.80) and the lowest for bilirubin (5/5, k < 0.60). Sensitivities for total protein were 41-75% (AU400) and 56-92% (Cobas and Architect); while specificities were 41-75% (AU400, Cobas, Architect). Dipsticks' sensitivity and specificity for glucose were 68-98%. Most of the dipsticks showed unacceptable repeatability (6/12, < 90%) for one parameter, most prominently for pH (3/12, < 90%). CONCLUSIONS: Most commonly used dipsticks in Croatia showed low level of agreement between each other. Moreover, their repeatability varies among manufacturers and their accuracy for glucose and proteins is poor.