Abstract
Standard visual urine dipstick analysis (UDA) is performed routinely in veterinary medicine; results can be influenced by both the operator and the method. We evaluated the agreement of results for canine and feline urine samples analyzed using a 10-patch dipstick (Multistix10SG; Siemens), both visually under double-anonymized conditions by students and a laboratory technician, and with an automated device (AD; Clinitek Status, Siemens). The mean concordance for semiquantitative urinalysis results between students and the technician and between students and the AD was fair (κ0.21-0.40) in dogs and cats; concordance was moderate between the technician and the AD (κ0.41-0.60) in dogs and good (κ0.61-0.80) in cats. For pH, the mean concordance between students and the technician and between the technician and the AD was good (ρ0.80-0.92) in dogs and cats; concordance was good between students and the AD (ρ0.80-0.92) in dogs and moderate (ρ0.59-0.79) in cats. Repeatability was higher (p < 0.001) for the technician and the AD than for a student. We found good agreement between UDA performed by an experienced operator and an AD in dogs and cats but found low reproducibility and low repeatability for urinalysis performed by an inexperienced operator.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
