Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33815611›Full record

ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021

Discrepancy in results between dipstick urinalysis and urine sediment microscopy.

Anca Bacârea, Gyula László Fekete, Bianca Liana Grigorescu, Vladimir Constantin Bacârea

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anca BacâreaDepartment of Pathophysiology, Dermatology Clinic, 'George Emil Palade' University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania.
Gyula László FeketeDepartment of Dermatology, Dermatology Clinic, 'George Emil Palade' University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania.
Bianca Liana GrigorescuDepartment of Pathophysiology, Dermatology Clinic, 'George Emil Palade' University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania.
Vladimir Constantin BacâreaDepartment of Medical Research Methodology, 'George Emil Palade' University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania.
Universitatea de Medicină, Farmacie, Științe și Tehnologie „George Emil Palade” din Târgu Mureș · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the advancement of urine test automation and the large-scale application of quality management policies, the source of the most crucial errors has become the pre-analytical phase. This study is an attempt to compare the results obtained from the examination of urine strips with those obtained by microscopic examination of urinary sediment, highlighting discordant results. This observational study was conducted between February and August 2019 in a private medical laboratory in Mureş County, and 2,600 urine samples were analyzed. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value for leukocytes, nitrites and red blood cells, taking as reference the microscopic examination of urine summary screening. Urine samples were collected from patients who presented to the laboratory. The 2,600 urine samples were analyzed using strips with 10 parameters: glucose, protein, bilirubin, urobilinogen, pH, specific density, red blood cells, nitrite, and leukocytes, and then using the microscope to examine the urinary sediment. We identified a small percentage (1.92%) of inconsistencies from the 2,600 samples of urine, between urinalysis and the microscopic examination and we identified the causes. The most common discordant results were: false-negatives for nitrite (72%), followed by false-positives results for red blood cells (22%), false-negative results for leukocytes (16%), false-negative results for red blood cells (4%) and false-positives for leukocytes (4%). The study confirmed that discrepancies appear despite the proper instruction of patients.

Indexed as

dipstick urinalysisdiscordant resultsmicroscopypHurine sediment

Identifiers

PMID33815611
PMCPMC8014952
OpenAlexW3137930017

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.