Search for


search for

Comparison of YD URiSCAN PluScope Urine Microscopic Analyzer and Sysmex UF-1000i Flow Cytometry Systems
J Lab Med Qual Assur 2018;40:223-229
Published online December 31, 2018
© 2018 Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service.

Jae Won Jung, Ae-Chin Oh, Yoon Hwan Chang, Jin Kyung Lee, and Young Jun Hong

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to: Young Jun Hong
Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, 75 Nowonro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01812, Korea
Tel: +82-2-970-2492, Fax: +82-2-973-7143
Received September 24, 2018; Revised October 19, 2018; Accepted October 24, 2018.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background: Urinalysis is one of the most commonly performed tests in clinical laboratories. In this study, we compared YD URiSCAN PluScope (PluScope; YD Diagnostics Corp., Korea) and Sysmex UF-1000i (UF-1000i; Sysmex Corp., Japan) for urine microscopic sediment analysis.
Methods: A total of 404 fresh urine samples were collected and analyzed using PluScope, UF-1000i, and manual microscopy. Quantitative correlation analyses for red blood cells (RBCs), white blood cells (WBCs), epithelial cells (EC), and casts were performed using Spearman셲 correlation. We evaluated agreement among the three systems by using weighted Cohen셲 觀 and calculating concordance rates within one grade of difference for semiquantitative and qualitative parameters.
Results: There were moderate-high correlations between PluScope and UF-1000i for RBCs, WBCs, and ECs (r =0.542, 0.714, and 0.571, respectively) but negligible correlation for casts (r =0.186). There were moderate-high correlations between manual microscopy and automated devices for RBCs, WBCs, and ECs (r =0.5500.745) but negligible correlations for casts (PluScope: r =0.247; UF-1000i: r =0.223). The pairwise concordance rates within one grade difference among the three methods were good for RBCs, WBCs, and ECs (95.0%99.0%, 觀=0.410.74). For casts, the concordance rate between PluScope and manual microscopy was fair (96.8%, 觀=0.25), but concordance rates between UF-1000i and manual microscopy and between the two automated devices were poor (81.2% and 81.7%; 觀=0.04 and 0.06, respectively).
Conclusions: The two automated urine sediment analyzers showed a moderate-high correlation and concordance rate. They showed good correlations and concordance rates for RBCs, WBCs, and ECs. However, manual microscopic examinations are still needed for reviewing and confirming the presence of pathologic particles in urine, such as casts and crystals.
Keywords : Automated urine sediment analyzer, Urinalysis, Urine sediment, URiSCAN PluScope, UF-1000i
  1. Riley RS, McPherson RA. Basic examination of urine. In: McPherson RA, Pincus MR, editors. Henry셲 clinical diagnosis and management by laboratory methods. 23th ed. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier, 2017:442-80.
  2. Delanghe JR, Speeckaert MM. Preanalytics in urinalysis. Clin Biochem 2016;49:1346-50.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Wald R, Bell CM, Nisenbaum R, Perrone S, Liangos O, Laupacis A, et al. Interobserver reliability of urine sediment interpretation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;4:56771.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Broeren MA, Bahceci S, Vader HL, Arents NL. Screening for urinary tract infection with the Sysmex UF-1000i urine flow cytometer. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:1025-9.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Lee AJ, Park CG, Bae YC, Jeon CH. Quality improvement of urinalysis results based on automatic sediment urinalysis and urine strip results. J Lab Med Qual Assur 2017;39:154-61.
  6. Chien TI, Kao JT, Liu HL, Lin PC, Hong JS, Hsieh HP, et al. Urine sediment examination: a comparison of automated urinalysis systems and manual microscopy. Clin Chim Acta 2007;384:28-34.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Zaman Z, Fogazzi GB, Garigali G, Croci MD, Bayer G, Kranicz T. Urine sediment analysis: analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX - a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:147-54.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Jiang T, Chen P, Ouyang J, Zhang S, Cai D. Urine particles analysis: performance evaluation of Sysmex UF-1000iand comparison among urine flow cytometer, dipstick, and visual microscopic examination. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2011;71:30-7.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Yuksel H, Kilic E, Ekinci A, Evliyaoglu O. Comparison of fully automated urine sediment analyzers H800-FUS100 and LabUMat-UriSed with manual microscopy. J Clin Lab Anal 2013;27:312-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Lee W, Ha JS, Ryoo NH. Comparison of the automated cobas u 701 urine microscopy and UF-1000i flow cytometry systems and manual microscopy in the examination of urine sediments. J Clin Lab Anal 2016;30:663-71.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Wesarachkitti B, Khejonnit V, Pratumvinit B, Reesukumal K, Meepanya S, Pattanavin C, et al. Performance Evaluation and comparison of the fully automated urinalysis analyzers UX-2000 and Cobas 6500. Lab Med 2016;47:12433.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Bakan E, Ozturk N, Baygutalp NK, Polat E, Akpinar K, Dorman E, et al. Comparison of Cobas 6500 and Iris IQ200 fully-automated urine analyzers to manual urine microscopy. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2016;26:365-75.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Bogaert L, Peeters B, Billen J. Evaluation of a new automated microscopy urine sediment analyser: sediMAX conTRUST. Acta Clin Belg 2017;72:91-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Ince FD, Ellidag HY, Koseoglu M, Simsek N, Yalcin H, Zengin MO. The comparison of automated urine analyzers with manual microscopic examination for urinalysis automated urine analyzers and manual urinalysis. Pract Lab Med 2016;5:14-20.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Urinalysis:approved guideline: GP16-A3. 3rd ed. Wayne (PA): Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2009.
  16. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Physician and nonphysician provider-performed microscopy testing:approved guideline: POCT10-A2. 2nd ed. Wayne (PA): Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2011.
  17. Ottiger C, Huber AR. Quantitative urine particle analysis:integrative approach for the optimal combination of automation with UF-100 and microscopic review with KOVA cell chamber. Clin Chem 2003;49:617-23.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 2012;24:69-71.
    Pubmed KoreaMed
  19. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:15974.
  20. European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine. European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2000;231:1-86.
  21. Japanese Association of Medical Technologists. Aims of the guidelines on urinary sediment examination procedures proposed by the Japanese committee for clinical laboratory standards (JCCLS). Jpn J Med Technol 2017;66:9-17.
  22. Khejonnit V, Pratumvinit B, Reesukumal K, Meepanya S, Pattanavin C, Wongkrajang P. Optimal criteria for microscopic review of urinalysis following use of automated urine analyzer. Clin Chim Acta 2015;439:1-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. User verification of precision and estimation of bias: approved guideline: EP15-A3. 3rd ed. Wayne (PA): Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2014.