Comparison of automated and manual methods for urinalysis

The authors compared results for accuracy and precision obtained by a semiautomated prototype International Remote Imaging Systems, Inc. (IRIS) urinalysis workstation (IUW) with those from quantitative manual urinalysis (QMU). Three technologists skilled in urinalysis each performed 172 urinalyses with both the IUW and QMU methods. The results show that the IUW method is likely to yield comparable counts for particulate analytes compared with the QMU, except for casts. The QMU reported significantly (P less than 0.001) more casts than the IUW method. This difference is related to at least a ninefold greater volume of untreated urine examined by the QMU method than the IUW method. The IUW method may provide a more accurate result than the QMU method at very low and high concentrations of particulate analytes. The result from 24 blind duplicate urines also analyzed by each of the three technologists with both methods showed comparable precision for particulate analytes between the two methods except for red blood cells; the QMU method had significantly (P less than 0.001) better precision for this analyte.