1430例尿沉渣镜检和尿液分析仪检测结果分析  

Results analysis of urine sediment detection with microscopy and urine analyzer detection in 1430 urine samples

作　　者：朱华[1] 

机构地区：[1]泰兴市第二人民医院检验科,江苏泰兴225400

出　　处：《现代医药卫生》2010年第14期2112-2113,共2页Journal of Modern Medicine & Health

摘　　要：目的:探讨尿沉渣显微镜镜检法和尿液分析仪干化学法在尿液常规检测中的差异。方法:利用尿沉渣显微镜镜检法和尿分析仪干化学法对1 430例随机尿标本进行检测。结果:(1)尿沉渣镜检白细胞阳性(>3个/HP)73例,阴性1 357例,阳性率5%;而尿分析仪干化学法检测白细胞阳性(±～+++)141例,阴性1 289例,阳性率9.9%,尿分析仪干化学法检测阳性患者例数比尿沉渣镜检多68例,阳性率高出4.9%,统计学差异有显著性(P<0.01)。(2)尿沉渣镜检红细胞阳性(>3个/HP)98例,阴性1 332例,阳性率7.4%;而尿分析仪干化学法检测红细胞阳性(±～+++)77例,阴性1353例,阳性率5.7%,两者比较差异无显著性。结论:尿沉渣显微镜镜检法与尿分析仪干化学法在白细胞检测方面存在差异,尿分析仪干化学法结果阳性标本应加以镜检确定。Objective：To investigate the difference between urine sediment detection with microscopy and dry chemical urine analyzer detection in urine routine test.Methods：1430 urine samples were randomly collected and detected by urine sediment detection with microscopy and dry chemical urine analyzer.Results：WBC positive（3 WBC/HP） by urine sediment microscopic detection was in 73 samples,negative in 1357 samples,with the positive rate of 5%;while WBC positive（±~＋＋＋） by dry chemical urine analyzer in 141 samples,negative in 1289 samples,with the positive rate of 9.9%,the number of WBC positive by urine analyzer was 68 more than tha tby urine sediment microscopic detection,the positive rate was higher by 4.9%,there was statistically significant difference（P〈0.01）.RBC positive（3 RBC/HP） by urine sediment microscopic detection was in 98 samples,negative in 1332 samples,with the positive rate of 7.4%;while RBC positive（±~＋＋＋） by urine analyzer was 77 samples,negative 1353 samples,with the positive rate of 5.7%,there was no statistical difference between the two methods.Conclusion：Urine sediment detection with microscopy and dry chemical urine analyzer have difference in detection of urine routine test,the positive results by urine analyzer should be determined by microscopy.

关 键 词：尿沉渣镜检 尿液分析仪 细胞 

分 类 号：R446[医药卫生—诊断学]