ArticleBiochemia medica2026
Evaluation of analytical performance and clinical applicability of the UriSed Mini, a semi-automated urine analyzer for cell counting in cerebrospinal fluid.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis is essential in diagnosing central nervous system pathologies. While manual cell counting by optical microscopy is the gold standard, it is labor-intensive and time-consuming, posing challenges particularly in urgent cases, automated hematology analyzers offer alternatives but come with limitations. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the UriSed Mini instrument for CSF in accordance with ICSH guidelines. Materials and methods: A total of 77 CSF patient samples were analyzed by both methods from September 2023 to September 2024. Following the International Council for Standardization in Hematology guidelines, the UriSed Mini was evaluated for short- and long-term imprecision, limit of blank, limit of detection and analytical measurement range. Quantitative comparison between the two methods was conducted using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok analyses. Qualitative agreement was assessed through inter-rater agreement testing. Results: The UriSed Mini successfully met all performance criteria, both in comparison to the manufacturer's claims and in the context of practical clinical requirements. While statistically significant differences were observed in the quantitative comparison (0.6 cells/µL), these discrepancies are unlikely to have clinical significance at the medical decision-making level. The qualitative comparison demonstrated excellent agreement, with a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.89-1.00). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the UriSed Mini meets analytical standards for CSF cell counting and aligns closely with optical microscopy at clinically relevant thresholds.
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.