Journal Article

Assessment of haematuria: automated urine flowmetry <i>vs</i> microscopy

Terje Apeland, Oddvar Mestad and Øyvind Hetland

in Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Published on behalf of European Renal Association - European Dialysis and Transplant Assoc

Volume 16, issue 8, pages 1615-1619
Published in print August 2001 | ISSN: 0931-0509
Published online August 2001 | e-ISSN: 1460-2385 | DOI:
Assessment of haematuria: automated urine flowmetry vs microscopy

Show Summary Details


Background. Microscopy of the urine sediment may be a useful method in the distinction between a glomerular and a non‐glomerular source of urinary bleeding. However, microscopic techniques are time consuming and hampered by inter‐observer variations. In the present study we have therefore compared bright‐field microscopy with automated urine flowmetry (Sysmex UF‐100), examining their ability to differentiate between glomerular and non‐glomerular haematuria.

Methods. Fresh urine samples were obtained from 112 patients with a well‐defined, single cause of a positive dipstick test. Their urine specimens were examined within 4 h in a blinded manner. Of them, 79 specimens had a positive dipstick for blood and thus could be evaluated for haematuria.

Results. The Sysmex UF‐100 had a sensitivity and specificity of 0.83 and 0.94 respectively in detecting non‐glomerular bleeding. The positive and negative predictive values were 0.95 and 0.78 respectively. The corresponding values of microscopy were 0.79 and 0.90 respectively, and 0.93 and 0.74 respectively.

Conclusions. Automated flowmetry can be used in the distinction between glomerular and non‐glomerular haematuria.

Keywords: glomerular; haematuria; non‐glomerular; urine flowmetry; urine microscopy; urine sediment

Journal Article.  2930 words.  Illustrated.

Subjects: Nephrology

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.