Publication: Performance evaluation and comparison of the fully automated urinalysis analyzers UX-2000 and Cobas 6500
Issued Date
2016-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
19437730
00075027
00075027
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85018340878
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Laboratory Medicine. Vol.47, No.2 (2016), 124-133
Suggested Citation
Bongkot Wesarachkitti, Varanya Khejonnit, Busadee Pratumvinit, Kanit Reesukumal, Suriya Meepanya, Chanutchaya Pattanavin, Preechaya Wongkrajang Performance evaluation and comparison of the fully automated urinalysis analyzers UX-2000 and Cobas 6500. Laboratory Medicine. Vol.47, No.2 (2016), 124-133. doi:10.1093/labmed/lmw002 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/43185
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Performance evaluation and comparison of the fully automated urinalysis analyzers UX-2000 and Cobas 6500
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2016. All rights reserved. Objective: To evaluate and compare the performances of the automated urinalysis devices UX-2000 and Cobas 6500. Method: A total of 258 urine specimens were collected from the routine specimen workload. We analyzed all specimens on both automated instruments and recorded the turnaround time from each method. Physical, chemical, and sedimentary urine components were compared between the automated and the manual method for each analyzer. Results: The correlation of urine physical/chemical properties between the 2 instruments was excellent. The Cobas 6500 instrument demonstrated a higher level of agreement for red blood cells (Cobas 6500: R = 0.94; UX-2000: R = 0.78) and white blood cells (Cobas 6500: R = 0.95; UX-2000: R = 0.85). The UX-2000 demonstrated higher sensitivity for small round cells, hyaline casts, pathological casts, and bacteria. The median turnaround time was 1.5 minutes and 8.5 minutes for the Cobas 6500 and UX-2000, respectively. Conclusions: The 2 devices showed similar performance in technical evaluation; they each reduce workload and increase time saving. However, manual examination by technicians is recommended for pathological specimens.