ABSTRACT

Objective: Microscopic examination of urine sediment is an essential part in the evaluation of renal and urinary tract diseases. Traditionally, urine sediments are assessed by microscopic examination of centrifuged urine. However, the current method used by the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation Medical Laboratory involves uncentrifuged urine. To encourage high level of care, the results provided to the physician must be accurate and reliable for proper diagnosis. The aim of this study is to determine whether the centrifuge method is more clinically significant than the uncentrifuged method.

Methods: In this study, a comparison between the results obtained from centrifuged and uncentrifuged methods were performed. A total of 167 urine samples were randomly collected and analysed during the period April–May 2010 at the Medical Laboratory, Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation. The urine samples were first analysed microscopically by the uncentrifuged, and then by the centrifuged method. The results obtained from both methods were recorded in a log book. These results were then entered into a database created in Microsoft Excel, and analysed for differences and similarities using this application. Analysis was further done in SPSS software to compare the results using Pearson’s correlation.

Results: When compared using Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis, both methods showed a good correlation between urinary sediments with the exception of white bloods cells. The centrifuged method had a slightly higher identification rate for all of the parameters.

Conclusions: There is substantial agreement between the centrifuged and uncentrifuged methods. However, the uncentrifuged method provides for a rapid turnaround time.