Recent technical developments have focused on the full automation of urinalyses, however the manual microscopic analysis of urine sediment is considered the reference method. The aim of this study was to compare the performances of the LabUMat-UriSed and the H800-FUS100 with manual microscopy, and with each other.Methods
The urine sediments of 332 urine samples were examined by these two devices (LabUMat-UriSed, H800-FUS100) and manual microscopy.Results
The reproducibility of the analyzers, UriSed and Fus100 (4.1–28.5% and 4.7–21.2%, respectively), was better than that with manual microscopy (8.5–33.3%). The UriSed was more sensitive for leukocytes (82%), while the Fus-100 was more sensitive for erythrocyte cell counting (73%). There were moderate correlations between manual microscopy and the two devices, UriSed and Fus100, for erythrocyte (r = 0.496 and 0.498, respectively) and leukocyte (r = 0.597 and 0.599, respectively) cell counting however the correlation between the two devices was much better for erythrocyte (r = 0.643) and for leukocyte (r = 0.767) cell counting.Conclusion
It can be concluded that these two devices showed similar performances. They were time-saving and standardized techniques, especially for reducing preanalytical errors such as the study time, centrifugation, and specimen volume for sedimentary analysis; however, the automated systems are still inadequate for classifying the cells that are present in pathological urine specimens.