Lab Med Online.  2016 Jul;6(3):147-151. 10.3343/lmo.2016.6.3.147.

Performance Evaluation of the CLINITEK Novus Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer

• Yim J
• Lee SG
• Cho S
• Won YC
• Kim JH

• KMID: 2308729
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3343/lmo.2016.6.3.147

Abstract

BACKGROUND
We aimed to evaluate the performance of the CLINITEK Novus urine chemistry analyzer (Siemens, UK).
METHODS
The precision, correlation, and carryover study were performed using two kinds of commercial quality control materials and 40-55 freshly collected patient specimens. We calculated exact and within-1-block agreement, along with kappa agreement, to compare the semi-quantitative results between urine chemistry analyzers. The urine specific gravity taken by a refractometer was compared with the analyzer results. Moreover, we analyzed additional urine specimens for protein to evaluate the agreement of results between those of the CLINITEK Novus and the AU680 analyzers (Beckman Coulter, Japan).
RESULTS
The precision study showed acceptable results; within-1-block agreement was 100% in all tested items. The urine chemistry results from the CLNITEK Novus analyzer demonstrated ≥85.1% within-1-block agreements with those of the Uriscan Super, and the kappa test results were ≥0.81. The comparison of specific gravity with manual refractometer showed a good correlation (r=0.991), and the protein comparison with the AU680 analyzer also showed a good correlation (with exact and within-1-block agreements being 75.9% and 100.0%, respectively). The carryover rates were 0% in all tested items, except specific gravity and heavy blood tests.
CONCLUSIONS
The CLINITEK Novus analyzer showed good performance in terms of precision, comparison, and carryover in this study. Therefore, the CLINITEK Novus automated urine analysis is expected to be useful for routine urinalysis in a clinical laboratory.

Keyword

Performance evaluation; Automated urinalysis; CLINITEK Novus

MeSH Terms

Chemistry*
Hematologic Tests
Humans
Quality Control
Specific Gravity
Urinalysis

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Agreement and correlation of specific gravity between (A) the CLINITEK Novus analyzer and a refractometer, (B) Uriscan Super and a refractometer, (C) CLINITEK Novus and Uriscan Super.

Reference

1. Kim KD. Urinalysis. In : Kang , editor. The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. Laboratory medicine. 5th ed. Seoul: E*PUBLIC;2014. p. 497–508.

2. McPherson RA, Ben-Ezra J. Basic examination of the urine. In : Henry JB, editor. Clinical diagnosis and management by laboratory methods. 22nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders;2011. p. 445–479.

3. Han TH. Urinalysis: the usefulness and limitations of urine dipstick testing. J Korean Soc Pediatr Nephrol. 2013; 17:42–48.

4. Park HR, Jeong BK, Park NW. Comparative evaluation of dipstick urinalysis by dipstick readers. J Clin Pathol Qual Control. 2001; 23:239–246.

5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. User verification of precision and estimation of bias; Approved guideline-Third Edition. EP15-A3. Third Edition. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute;2014.

6. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Urinalysis; Approved Guideline-Third Edition. GP16-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute;2012.

7. Skitek M. Imprecision and instability of common analytes in urine analysed by semi-automated dipstick urinalysis. Accred Qual Assur. 2004; 9:700–703.