| Autor: |
Luimstra JJ; Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands., Koçer RG; Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands., Jerman A; Department of Nephrology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia., Klein Gunnewiek J; Section General Chemistry, Dutch Foundation for External Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories (SKML), Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Gijzen K; Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands., Jacobs LHJ; Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands., Demir AY; Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. |
| Abstrakt: |
Background The morphological assessment of urinary erythrocytes (uRBC) is a convenient screening tool for the differentiation of nephrological (dysmorphic) and urological (isomorphic) causes of hematuria. Considering the morphological heterogeneity, this analysis is often perceived as difficult. There is no clear (inter)national consensus and there is a lack of external quality assessment programs. To gain insight into the heterogeneity within and between laboratories, we scrutinized the current state of this analysis in Dutch medical laboratories. Methods The laboratories, affiliated with the Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories, were invited to participate in a web-based survey, consisting of two questionnaires. The first one provided information about the institution and laboratory organization, and the second explored the variability in the morphological analysis of uRBC on the basis of categorization of 160 uRBC images. Statistical analysis was premised on binomial significance testing and principal component analysis. Results Nearly one third of the Dutch medical laboratories (65/191) with 167 staff members participated in the survey. Most of these laboratories (83%) were an integral part of secondary care. The statistical analysis of the evaluations of the participants in comparison to the consensus (three experts from two different medical laboratories) suggested a great degree of heterogeneity in the agreement. Nearly half of the participants consciously disagreed with the consensus, whereas one fifth demonstrated a random relationship with it. Conclusions In Dutch medical laboratories, results from morphological analysis of uRBC are heterogeneous, which point out the necessity for standardization and harmonization. |
