Comparison of different methods of erythrocyte dysmorphism analysis to determine the origin of hematuria.

Nephron Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2014-01-01 Epub Date: 2014-11-08 DOI:10.1159/000367848
Marila Gaste Martinez, Vanessa dos S Silva, Adriana P do Valle, Carmen R P R Amaro, José E Corrente, Luis Cuadrado Martin
{"title":"Comparison of different methods of erythrocyte dysmorphism analysis to determine the origin of hematuria.","authors":"Marila Gaste Martinez,&nbsp;Vanessa dos S Silva,&nbsp;Adriana P do Valle,&nbsp;Carmen R P R Amaro,&nbsp;José E Corrente,&nbsp;Luis Cuadrado Martin","doi":"10.1159/000367848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>There is disagreement regarding the performance of conventional optical microscopy to assess the origin of hematuria. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal cutoff point for dysmorphic cells in order to detect glomerular hematuria by optical and phase-contrast microscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 131 urine samples (66 from patients with glomerulopathies and 65 from nephrolithiasis patients) were evaluated in a blinded fashion. The percentages of doughnut cells and acanthocytes were verified by optical and phase-contrast microscopy. A total of 131 patients were randomly allocated to the derivation (n = 73) and validation (n = 58) groups. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to check the discriminatory power of each group and the best cutoff points were determined by the Youden index in the derivation group and subsequently tested in the validation group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were statistically significant using both methods (conventional optical and phase-contrast microscopy) and both groups (derivation and validation). AUCs did not differ between different glomerulopathies. The best cutoff point to determine the glomerular origin of hematuria by total dysmorphic cells was 22% using an optical conventional microscope and 40% by phase-contrast microscopy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We determined the best cutoff points to interpret erythrocyte dysmorphism and demonstrated that it is possible to discriminate the origin of hematuria by evaluating erythrocyte dysmorphism in urinalysis using either an optical or a phase-contrast microscope.</p>","PeriodicalId":19094,"journal":{"name":"Nephron Clinical Practice","volume":"128 1-2","pages":"88-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000367848","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nephron Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000367848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Background/aims: There is disagreement regarding the performance of conventional optical microscopy to assess the origin of hematuria. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal cutoff point for dysmorphic cells in order to detect glomerular hematuria by optical and phase-contrast microscopy.

Methods: In total, 131 urine samples (66 from patients with glomerulopathies and 65 from nephrolithiasis patients) were evaluated in a blinded fashion. The percentages of doughnut cells and acanthocytes were verified by optical and phase-contrast microscopy. A total of 131 patients were randomly allocated to the derivation (n = 73) and validation (n = 58) groups. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to check the discriminatory power of each group and the best cutoff points were determined by the Youden index in the derivation group and subsequently tested in the validation group.

Results: All areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were statistically significant using both methods (conventional optical and phase-contrast microscopy) and both groups (derivation and validation). AUCs did not differ between different glomerulopathies. The best cutoff point to determine the glomerular origin of hematuria by total dysmorphic cells was 22% using an optical conventional microscope and 40% by phase-contrast microscopy.

Conclusion: We determined the best cutoff points to interpret erythrocyte dysmorphism and demonstrated that it is possible to discriminate the origin of hematuria by evaluating erythrocyte dysmorphism in urinalysis using either an optical or a phase-contrast microscope.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同红细胞畸形分析方法确定血尿来源的比较。
背景/目的:关于常规光学显微镜评估血尿起源的性能存在分歧。本研究的目的是确定畸形细胞的最佳切断点,以便通过光学和相对比显微镜检测肾小球血尿。方法:采用盲法对131份尿样(66份来自肾小球病变患者,65份来自肾结石患者)进行评估。通过光学显微镜和相差显微镜验证甜甜圈细胞和棘细胞的百分比。共有131例患者被随机分配到衍生组(n = 73)和验证组(n = 58)。绘制受试者工作特征(Receiver-operating characteristic, ROC)曲线来检验各组的区分能力,并在推导组中采用约登指数确定最佳截断点,随后在验证组中进行检验。结果:两种方法(常规光学和相差显微镜)和两组(推导和验证)的ROC曲线下的所有区域(auc)均具有统计学意义。不同肾小球病变的auc无差异。在光学常规显微镜下,通过总畸形细胞来确定血尿肾小球起源的最佳截止点为22%,在相差显微镜下为40%。结论:我们确定了解释红细胞畸形的最佳截止点,并证明可以通过使用光学或相对比显微镜评估尿液分析中的红细胞畸形来区分血尿的起源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nephron Clinical Practice
Nephron Clinical Practice 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Outcomes of In-Centre Haemodialysis Patients between the 1st and 2nd COVID-19 Outbreak in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: A UK Renal Registry Analysis Association of Serum Triglycerides and Renal Outcomes among 1.6 Million US Veterans Genetic Deletion of the Stromal Cell Marker CD248 (Endosialin) Protects against the Development of Renal Fibrosis Contents Vol. 128, 2014 Author Index Vol. 127, No. 1-4, 2014
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1