Accuracy of the IDEXX SediVue Dx analyzer for quantifying RBC and WBC indices in the urine sediments of cats and dogs compared with manual microscopic evaluations

Accuracy of the IDEXX SediVue Dx analyzer for quantifying RBC and WBC indices in the urine sediments of cats and dogs compared with manual microscopic evaluations

© 2022 American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Veterinary clinical pathology. - 1975. - 51(2022), 4 vom: 30. Dez., Seite 470-479
1. Verfasser: Blanco, Anthony E (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Heseltine, Johanna C, Hernandez, Annalisa M, Bilbrough, Graham E A, DeNicola, Dennis B, Myrick, Celine, Edwards, Suzanne, Hammond, Jeremy M, Myers, Alexandra N, Nabity, Mary B
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2022
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Veterinary clinical pathology
Schlagworte:Journal Article automated bias hematuria method comparison pyuria
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:© 2022 American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology.
BACKGROUND: The IDEXX SediVue Dx (SediVue) is an automated, in-clinic urine sediment analyzer for veterinary patients. The bias between the results from manual microscopy and the SediVue is currently unknown
OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the SediVue, we aimed to determine the bias between the SediVue (index test) and manual microscopy (reference standard) for the quantification of RBCs and WBCs in urine
METHODS: Urine remnant samples were collected from cats and dogs that contained RBCs (n = 462) and WBCs (n = 510). Retrospective analysis of results from urine sediment examinations using both manual microscopy (using a KOVA and DeciSlide system) and the SediVue (1.0.1.3) was performed. Bias was determined with Bland-Altman plots. SediVue-captured images from high-bias samples were reviewed, and biases were compared
RESULTS: The median bias for semi-quantitative RBC and WBC counts was determined for RBC and WBC counts. The cutoffs were RBC ≤ 5/HPF, 0.3; RBC 5.1-10/HPF, 10.1; RBC 10.1-20/HPF, 10.6; and RBC > 20/HPF, 28.93; WBC ≤ 5/HPF, 0.1; WBC 5.1-10/HPF, 2.2; WBC 10.1-20/HPF, 9.4; and WBC > 20/HPF, 26.6. High bias between the methods was identified in 98 samples (21.0%) with RBCs and 77 samples (15.7%) with WBCs. Reviewer-based enumeration of the SediVue-captured images decreased the percentage of samples with high bias to 17.3% for RBCs and to 11.4% for WBCs
CONCLUSIONS: Bias in the RBC and WBC counts between manual microscopy and the SediVue was unlikely to impact clinical interpretations in a majority of cases. Although reviewer enumeration of SediVue-captured images reduced observed bias, inherent differences between methodologies appeared to have a larger impact on the bias
Beschreibung:Date Completed 02.12.2022
Date Revised 02.12.2022
published: Print-Electronic
Citation Status MEDLINE
ISSN:1939-165X
DOI:10.1111/vcp.13141