ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2019
Automated urinalysis combining physicochemical analysis, on-board centrifugation, and digital imaging in one system: A multicenter performance evaluation of the cobas 6500 urine work area.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Isolated microhematuria in potential kidney donors: evaluating kidney biopsy findings with dipstick urinalysis and urine microscopy results.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
- Current Pyuria Cutoffs Promote Inappropriate Urinary Tract Infection Diagnosis in Older Women.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Article
- Automated urine sediment analyzers underestimate the severity of hematuria in glomerular diseases.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Predictive Value of Urinalysis and Recent Antibiotic Exposure to Distinguish Between Bacteriuria, Candiduria, and No-Growth Urine.Infection and drug resistance · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated the analytical performance of the fully automated cobas DESIGN AND
methodsThe study was conducted at three European centers using un-centrifuged surplus routine urine samples; all measurements were performed within 2 h of sample collection. Precision, sample carry-over, and method comparisons were evaluated per Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Method comparisons: cobas u 601 versus Urisys 2400 and cobas u 411 urine test strips; and cobas u 701 versus KOVA® visual microscopy and iQ200 analyzer. Operability and functionality were assessed using questionnaires.
resultsPrecision of the entire cobas 6500 system was within predefined acceptance limits and no significant carry-over was observed. Erythrocytes, leukocytes, nitrites, and protein were in good agreement (≥93%) with cobas u 411 reflectometry. High correlation was shown between the cobas u 701 analyzer and KOVA visual microscopy for red blood cells (RBC; slope, 0.89; Pearson's
conclusionsThe fully automated workflow, high precision, and high throughput of the cobas 6500 system have the potential to facilitate standardization of urine screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.