Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26981022›Full record

ArticleBiochemia medica2016

Evaluation of the appropriate time period between sampling and analyzing for automated urinalysis.

Ramona C Dolscheid-Pommerich, Ute Klarmann-Schulz, Rupert Conrad, Birgit Stoffel-Wagner, Berndt Zur

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biochemia medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ramona C Dolscheid-PommerichDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Ute Klarmann-SchulzInstitute of Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany; Institute of Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology (IMBIE), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Rupert ConradDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Birgit Stoffel-WagnerDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Berndt ZurDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPreanalytical specifications for urinalysis must be strictly adhered to avoid false interpretations. Aim of the present study is to examine whether the preanalytical factor 'time point of analysis' significantly influences stability of urine samples for urine particle and dipstick analysis. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn 321 pathological spontaneous urine samples, urine dipstick (Urisys™2400, Combur-10-Test™strips, Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and particle analysis (UF-1000 i™, Sysmex, Norderstedt, Germany) were performed within 90 min, 120 min and 240 min after urine collection.

resultsFor urine particle analysis, a significant increase in conductivity (120 vs. 90 min: P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min: P < 0.001) and a significant decrease in WBC (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), RBC (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), casts (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001) and epithelial cells (120 vs. 90 min P = 0.610, 240 vs. 90 min P = 0.041) were found. There were no significant changes for bacteria. Regarding urine dipstick analysis, misclassification rates between measurements were significant for pH (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), leukocytes (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), nitrite (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), protein (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P<0.001), ketone (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), blood (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001), specific gravity (120 vs. 90 min P < 0.001, 240 vs. 90 min P < 0.001) and urobilinogen (120 vs. 90 min, P = 0.031). Misclassification rates were not significant for glucose and bilirubin.

conclusionMost parameters critically depend on the time window between sampling and analysis. Our study stresses the importance of adherence to early time points in urinalysis (within 90 min).

Indexed as

Cell CountEpithelial CellsErythrocyte CountHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationLeukocyte CountReagent StripsReproducibility of ResultsSpecimen HandlingTime FactorsUrinalysisUrineUrine Specimen CollectionReagent Stripsanalytical sample preparation methodsautomationflow cytometryspecimen handlingurinalysis

Identifiers

PMID26981022
PMCPMC4783094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.