ArticleBiochemia medica2021
Survey on reporting of epithelial cells in urine sediment as part of external quality assessment programs in Brazilian laboratories.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic Value of Cellular Phenotyping and Pathological Casts Using Urine Flow Cytometry in Children with Lupus Nephritis.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Automated urine analyzers: a comparative study of Atellica UAS 800 and UAS 60 with risk analysis.Biochemia medica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEpithelial cells (ECs) are structures regularly observed during urine microscopy analysis. The correct identification of EC subtypes can be useful since renal tubular epithelial cells (RTECs) are clinically relevant. We investigate the urinary ECs report and the judgement of its clinical importance by Brazilian laboratories. MATERIALS AND
methodsA survey with four questions was made available to participants of the Urinalysis External Quality Assessment Program (EQAP) from Controllab. Laboratories composed 3 groups: (1) differentiating ECs subtypes: "squamous", "transitional" and "RTECs"; (2) differentiating ECs subtypes: "squamous" or "non-squamous" cells; (3) without ECs subtype identification. Participants did not necessarily answer to all questions and the answers were evaluated both within the same laboratory's category and within different categories of laboratories.
resultsA total of 1336 (94%) laboratories answered the survey; Group 1, 119/140 (85%) reported that ECs differentiation is important to the physician and 62% want to be evaluated by EQAP, while in Group 3, 455/1110 (41%) reported it is useful to them, however only 25% want be evaluated by EQAP. Group 2 laboratories 37/51 (73%) reported that the information is important, but only 13/52 (25%) are interested in an EQAP with differentiation of the 3 ECs subtypes.
conclusionMost of the laboratories do not differentiate ECs in the three subtypes, despite the clinical importance of RTECs. Education of laboratory staff about the clinical significance of urinary particles should be considered a key priority.
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.