ArticleBiochemia medica2022
Verification of Atellica 1500 and comparison with Iris urine analyser and urine culture.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance verification of the new UF-1500 urine particle analyser: a new opportunity for small and medium laboratories.Practical laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Automated urine analyzers: a comparative study of Atellica UAS 800 and UAS 60 with risk analysis.Biochemia medica · 2025Article
- Comparison of Labsan Tricell-1000 and Dirui FUS-2000 automated urine analyzers with manual microscopy.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aims of study were to assess: 1) performance specifications of Atellica 1500, 2) comparability of Atellica 1500 and Iris, 3) the accuracy of both analysers in their ability to detect bacteria. MATERIALS AND
methodsCarryover, linearity, precision, reproducibility, and limit of blank (LoB) verification were evaluated for erythrocyte and leukocyte counts. ICSH 2014 protocol was used for estimation of carryover, CLSI EP15-A3 for precision, and CLSI EP17 for LoB verification. Comparison for quantitative parameters was evaluated by Bland-Altman plot and Passing-Bablok regression. Qualitative parameters were evaluated by Weighted kappa analysis. Sixty-five urine samples were randomly selected and sent for urine culture which was used as reference method to determine the accuracy of bacteria detection by analysers.
resultsAnalytical specifications of Atellica 1500 were successfully verified. Total of 393 samples were used for qualitative comparison, while 269 for sediment urinalysis. Bland-Altman analysis showed statistically significant proportional bias for erythrocytes and leukocytes. Passing-Bablok analysis for leukocytes pointed to significant constant and minor proportional difference, while it was not performed for erythrocytes due to significant data deviation from linearity. Kappa analysis resulted in the strongest agreements for pH, ketones, glucose concentrations and leukocytes, while the poorest agreement for bacteria. The sensitivity and specificity of bacteria detection were: 91 (59-100)% and 76 (66-87)% for Atellica 1500 and 46 (17-77)% and 96 (87-100)% for Iris.
conclusionThere are large differences between Atellica 1500 and Iris analysers, due to which they are not comparable and can not be used interchangeably. While there was no difference in specificity of bacteria detection, Iris analyser had greater sensitivity.
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.