Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R. / Tsongalis, Gregory J.

12 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2013: 2.955
Rank 5 out of 29 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2013 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.860
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.046

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Limits of preservation of samples for urine strip tests and particle counting

Timo Kouri1 / Outi Malminiemi2 / Joris Penders3 / Virpi Pelkonen4 / Lotta Vuotari5 / Joris Delanghe6

1Laboratory, Oulu University Hospital, and Department of Clinical Chemistry, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland

2Centre for Laboratory Medicine, Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland

3Department of Clinical Chemistry, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium and Department of Clinical Biology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (ZOL), Genk, Belgium

4Laboratory, Oulu University Hospital, and Department of Clinical Chemistry, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland

5Centre for Laboratory Medicine, Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland

6Department of Clinical Chemistry, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

Corresponding author: Dr. Timo T. Kouri, MD, Docent, Oulu University Hospital, Laboratory Administration, P.O. Box 50, 90029 OYS, Finland Phone: +358-40-7730537 (mobile), +358-8-3154640 (office), Fax: +358-8-315 5541,

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 703–713, ISSN (Online) 14374331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2008.122, March 2008

Publication History

Received:
2007-10-30
Accepted:
2008-01-08
Published Online:
2008-03-10

Abstract

Background: Preservation of urine samples is important for centralised laboratory services with automated instruments.

Methods: A multicentre evaluation was carried out to assess preservative tubes from BD Diagnostics-Pre-analytical Systems and from Greiner Bio-One for test strip reading (documented at the level of remission values), for particle counting by flow cytometers (UF-100) and for visual microscopy. Failures were expressed as percentages of originally positive samples beyond a two-fold change (+100% or –50%) from the original values.

Results: The preservative-containing BD Plus C&S plastic, BD Plus UAP and Greiner Stabilur tubes succeeded in preservation of test strip results for 6–24 h (exceptions were glucose and nitrite tests). Greiner boric acid tube showed false negative results in leukocyte, protein and ketone strip tests immediately after adding the preservative. Urine red blood cell counts (with Sysmex UF-100) were preserved for 5 h in BD Plus C&S plastic and Greiner Stabilur tubes (Greiner tubes having clearly larger preservative-related background). Bacteria or white blood cell counting succeeded in BD Plus C&S plastic tubes for 5 or 24 h, respectively, but up to 72 h in Greiner Stabilur tubes. In visual microscopy, the Greiner Stabilur tube was slightly better than the BD Plus C&S plastic tube.

Conclusions: Urine specimens can be transported at +20°C on the day of collection if preserved properly. Longer delays need careful planning with current preservatives. Flow cytometry with UF-100 is sensitive to non-dissolved preservative remnants.

Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:703–13.

Keywords: automation; particle counting; preservation; test strips; urinalysis

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.