2007, Number 2
<< Back Next >>
Bioquimia 2007; 32 (2)
Reproducibility and variability the control Liquichek urinalysis control (Bio-Rad) Different volumes the evaluation
Villanueva-Jorge S, Salazar-Canul M, Medina-Escobedo M
Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 49-57
PDF size: 155.94 Kb.
ABSTRACT
Despite the advancement of knowledge regarding Quality Control, the Urinalysis area (UQC) is still left behind due to controls’ costs and the existence of some aspects that can affect the results. Manufacturers seldom consider the time in which the control reaches its optimum temperature to be used after storage, the times necessary to invert the sample in order to homogenize it, the minimum quantity required for the control’s optimization, etc. Consequently, evaluating the reproducibility and variability of Liquichek Urinalysis Controls (Bio-Rad) by using 4 mL and 12 mL aliquots of level 1 and level 2, was found to be essential to determine whether working with a standardized procedure and reducing volumes would lower costs of the UQC implementation. Results show that the level 2 of the greater volume maintains reproducibility until the fifth day, whereas the same does not occur with the one of lesser volume, which had greater variation. In addition, although both values remained within the range established by the manufacturer, the 12 mL volume provides more reliability in the results. It is indispensable to remark that the level 2 of the 12 mL volume did not be have within the manufacturer’s specifications, since it indicates a 30-day stability period at 2-8 °C or 10 immersions, and analytes such as ketones, proteins, urobilinogen, and leukocytes were stable until the fourth day of each week.
REFERENCES
Sardiñas PO, Hernández PM. Aseguramiento de la calidad en un laboratorio acreditado. Rev Cubana Hig Epidemiol. 2002; 40: 16-19.
Sabater TJ, Vilumara TA. Buenas prácticas de laboratorio (GLP). 2ª ed. Barcelona: Díaz de Santos; 2000. p. 38-42.
Bernard HJ, Traete GA. Diagnóstico y tratamiento por el laboratorio. España: Salvat; 1998. p. 471-477.
Castillo SM, Fonseca YM. Mejoría continua de la calidad. Guía para los laboratorios clínicos de América Latina. México: Médica Panamericana; 1998. p. 64-65.
Medina EM, Villanueva JS, Gala TE, Garrocha GM, Medina EC. Comparación entre las lecturas de las tiras de orina combur 10 test® M y multistix® 10 SG. Bioquimia. 2005; 30: 76-81.
Compendium. Urinalysis with test strips. Alemania: Roche Diagnostics; 2004. p. 19-21.
Graff LS. Análisis de orina. 2ª ed. México: Panamericana; 1987. p. 19-61.
Lammers RL, Gibson S, Kovacs D, Sears W, Strachan G. Comparison of test characteristics of urine dipstick an urinalysis at various test cutoff points. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38: 505-512.
Bio-Rad Laboratory Diagnostics Group. LiquichekTM Urinalysis Control Levels 1 and 2. Preliminary Insert. 2005.
Pareja Q, Sosa R, Rodríguez R. Memorias XXV Congreso Nacional de Química Clínica. Morelia: Roche Diagnostics; 2002.
Argimon PJ, Jiménez VJ. Métodos de investigación clínica y epidemiológica. 2ª ed. España: Harcourt; 2000. p. 321-322.
Pita FS, Pértega DS. Pruebas diagnósticas. Cad Aten Primaria. 2003; 10: 120-124.
Riegelman RK, Hirsch RP. Cómo estudiar un estudio y probar una prueba: lectura crítica de la literatura médica. España: Organización Panamericana de la Salud; 1998. p. 98.
López UG, Pita FS. Medidas de concordancia: el índice de Kappa. Cad Aten Primaria. 1999; 6: 169-171.
Simerville JA, Maxted WC, Pahira JJ. Urinalysis: a comprehensive review. Am Fam Physician. 2005; 71: 1153-1162.