尿液红细胞定量分析方法学的探讨

目的 探讨并比较尿液红细胞自动化仪器定量方法与人工镜检定量计数的关系.方法 制备尿红细胞标准液,分别用不离心、离心两种人工镜检方法和UF-100全自动尿沉渣分析仪、朗迈UriSed全自动尿沉渣分析仪两种自动化尿液分析仪进行检测,分析四种尿红细胞定量方法间的差异.结果 离心镜检法检测尿红细胞结果与理论浓度之间偏差最大,不离心镜检法、UF-100分析仪法、朗迈UriSed分析仪法检测结果较接近理论浓度.不离心镜检法检测结果与理论浓度之间之间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；UF-1 00分析仪、朗迈UriSed分析仪、离心镜检检测结果与理论浓度间的差异均有统计学意义（P0.05）；不离心镜检法检测结果与UF-100分析仪、朗迈UriSed分析仪检测结果间的差异无统计学意义（0.05）；离心镜检检测结果与UF-100分析仪、朗迈UriSed分析仪检测结果之间的差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.UF-100分析仪检测结果与朗迈UriSed分析仪检测结果之间的差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.四种方法的检测结果与理论值之间均有良好的线性关系（r值分别为0.991,0.999,0.999,0.998）.结论 尿液红细胞离心镜检计数法不适用于红细胞定量分析.UF-100分析法和朗迈UriSed分析法由于具有快速自动化检测的特性更适用于尿红细胞常规定量检测,但对尿红细胞的识别应另行探讨.不离心镜检计数法能较准确地反映尿液红细胞的实际浓度,但由于操作繁琐,效率低下且存在人工误差而不实用,可作为自动化尿分析仪的复检方法.

Methodological study of quantitative analysis for urinary red blood cells

Objective To study the quantitative method of detecting urinary red blood cells （RBC） by automated urine cell analyzer and evaluate its relationship with the microscopic count. Methods Urine samples with different concentrations of RBCs were detected by manual microscopy with/without centrifugalization, UF-100 urinary sediment analyzer and LabUMat UriSed auto- mated urine cell analyzer, respectively. Results Urine RBC concentration detected by manual microscopy with centrifugalization deviated dramatically from theoretical concentration. While the concentration analyzed by manual microscopy without centrifugal- ization, UF-IO0 and LabUMat UriSed was close to theoretical concentration. There was no statistical difference between results analyzed by manual microscopy without centrifugalization and theoretical concentration （P〉0.05）, There were statistical differences among the results tested by manual microscopy with centrifugalization, UF-IO0 and LabUMat UriSed （P〈O.05）. There were no sta- tistical difference between results analyzed by manual microscopy without centrifugalization and that by UF-IO0 or by LabUMat UriSed （P〉O.05）. There were statistical difference between results analyzed by manual microscopy with centrifugalization and that by UF-100 or by LabUMat UriSed （P〈O.05）. There was statistical difference between results analyzed by UF-IO0 and that by LabUMat UriSed （P〈O.05）. There was good linear relationship between the detection results of the four methods and the theoretical concentration （r was 0.991,0.999,0.999,0.998, respectively）. Conclusion Manual microscopy with centrifugalization is not appli- cable for the quantitative analysis of urinary RBCs. UF-100 and LabUMat UriSed are more applicable for routine quantitative de- tection of urinary RBCs for their quick and automated features. Nevertheless, the function for the cell identification should be un- der further investigation. Manual microscopy without centrifugalization may reflect the actual RBC concentration more accurately. But it＇s overelaborate, inefficient and existing artificial error, it should be used for rechecking the results detected by the automated urine cell analyzer.