[1]宋培培.干化学法与尿沉渣分析仪法检测儿童尿液标本的结果比较[J].医学信息,2020,33(13):166-168.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.13.052]
　SONG Pei-pei.Comparison Between the Results of Dry Chemistry and Urine Sediment Analyzer in Detecting Urine Samples of Children[J].Medical Information,2020,33(13):166-168.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.13.052]
点击复制

干化学法与尿沉渣分析仪法检测儿童尿液标本的结果比较()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
33卷
期数:
2020年13期
页码:
166-168
栏目:
诊疗技术
出版日期:
2020-07-01

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison Between the Results of Dry Chemistry and Urine Sediment Analyzer in Detecting Urine Samples of Children
文章编号:
1006-1959（2020）13-0166-03
作者:
宋培培
（电子科技大学医学院附属妇女儿童医院·成都市妇女儿童中心医院检验科，四川 成都 611731）
Author(s):
SONG Pei-pei
(Department of Labratory,Chengdu Women’s and Children’s Central Hospital,School of Medicine Universityof Electronic Science and Technology of China,Chengdu 611731,Sichuan,China)
关键词:
尿红细胞; 尿白细胞; 尿沉渣; 干化学法
Keywords:
Urine red blood cells; Urine white blood cells; Urine sediment; Dry chemical methods
分类号:
R446.12
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.13.052
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 比较尿液干化学法与尿沉渣分析仪法对儿童尿液标本中红细胞和白细胞的检测结果的影响。方法 收集成都市妇女儿童中心医院2019年1~12月住院及门诊就诊的10000例儿童新鲜尿液标本，采用尿液干化学分析仪法、尿沉渣全自动分析仪法及尿沉渣显微镜检法进行检测，并以显微镜检作为对照，比较三种方法检测儿童尿液红细胞、白细胞的结果。结果 全自动尿沉渣分析仪法在检测红细胞时敏感性、特异性均高于尿液干化学分析仪法（92.35% vs 64.73%）、（96.32% vs 95.05%），差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05），而尿液干化学分析仪法检测红细胞的假阳性率和假阴性率高于全自动尿沉渣分析仪法（4.95% vs 3.68%）、（35.27% vs 7.65%），差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。全自动尿沉渣分析仪法在检测白细胞时敏感性高于尿液干化学分析仪法（86.71% vs 36.19%），但是特异性低于尿液干化学分析仪法（94.17% vs 98.22%），差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；尿液干化学分析仪法检测白细胞的假阳性率低于全自动尿沉渣分析仪法（1.78% vs 5.83%），但假阴性率高于全自动尿沉渣分析仪法（63.81% vs 13.29%），差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 全自动尿沉渣分析仪法检测红细胞的敏感性、特异性优于尿液干化学法，尿液干化学分析仪法在检测白细胞的特异性优于全自动尿沉渣分析仪法，需将其检测方法结合使用，才能快速、高效地为临床提供更为准确、可靠的检验数据。
Abstract:
Objective To compare the effect of urine dry chemistry and urine sediment analyzer on the detection results of red blood cells and white blood cells in urine samples of children. Methods Collecting 10,000 fresh urine samples of Chengdu Women’s and Children’s Central Hospital from January to December 2019 inpatients and outpatients, using UC-3500 urine dry chemical analyzer, UF-5000 automatic urine sediment analyzer and urine sediment microscopic examination was used as a control, and microscopic examination was used as a control to compare the results of three methods for detecting urine red blood cells and white blood cells in children.Results The sensitivity and specificity of the automatic urine sediment analyzer method in detecting red blood cells are higher than that of the urine dry chemical analyzer method (92.35% vs 64.73%) and (96.32% vs 95.05%), the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05), and the false positive rate and false negative rate of erythrocyte detection by urine dry chemical analyzer method are higher than that of automatic urine sediment analyzer method (4.95% vs 3.68%), (35.27% vs 7.65%), the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The automatic urine sediment analyzer method is more sensitive than the urine dry chemical analyzer method (86.71% vs 36.19%) in detecting leukocytes, but the specificity is lower than the urine dry chemical analyzer method (94.17% vs 98.22%),the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); the false positive rate of urine dry chemical analyzer for detecting white blood cells is lower than that of automatic urine sediment analyzer (1.78% vs 5.83%), but the false negative rate is higher than that of automatic urine Slag analyzer method (63.81% vs 13.29%), the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).Conclusion The sensitivity and specificity of the automatic urine sediment analyzer for detecting red blood cells is better than that of urine dry chemistry. The urine dry chemical analyzer is better than the automatic urine sediment analyzer for detecting white blood cells. The combined use of detection methods can provide more accurate and reliable test data for clinic quickly and efficiently.

参考文献/References:

[1]张洪波,张驰,李果.基于UF1000i尿沉渣分析仪的ATLAS尿干化学分析仪红细胞反射率验证思考[J].检验医学,2017,32(7):614-615.[2]盛晓光,常红叶,齐力,等.两种常用尿常规检验方法的结果比较[J].中国实验诊断学,2016,20(7):1150-1151.[3]肖凤静,郑善銮,何娟,等.探讨尿沉渣分析仪、尿干化学分析仪及光学显微镜3种方法检测尿液红细胞的一致性[J].国际检验医学杂志,2014,35(23):3241-3243.[4]金智东.全自动尿液分析仪对尿液中红细胞、白细胞的检测价值讨论[J].中国医疗器械信息,2019,25(3):159-160.[5]别艳红.尿干化学分析法、尿沉渣分析仪法和显微镜检查法联合检测尿白、红细胞及管型结果分析[J].心理医生,2017,23(10):253-254.[6]高利娟,喻涛,李浩.不同方法检测尿液白细胞和红细胞的对比分析[J].检验医学与临床,2017,14(Z1):49-51.[7]马瑞鑫.尿液镜检在尿液检验中的重要性评价[J].中国医药指南,2019,17(12):55-56.[8]章立锋.干化学法联合尿沉渣分析仪法用于尿常规检验的临床价值[J].中国药物经济学,2017,12(9):136-138．[9]殷贤斌,朱晓丽,黄小玲,等.尿红细胞与尿隐血检测方法评价及影响因素分析[J].贵州医药,2019,43(11):1704-1706.[10]石坚.三种方法检测尿液红细胞白细胞结果研究[J].河北医学,2015,21(2):314-317.

相似文献/References:

[1]孙言非,白经纬,王 然.尿常规干化学法联合尿沉渣镜检对尿白细胞、红细胞及尿蛋白的检验价值分析[J].医学信息,2023,36(13):134.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.13.028]
　SUN Yan-fei,BAI Jing-wei,WANG Ran.Value of Urine Routine Dry Chemical Method Combined with Urine Sediment Microscopy in the Detection of Urine White Blood Cells, Red Blood Cells and Urine Protein[J].Medical Information,2023,36(13):134.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.13.028]

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01