Esame fisico, chimico e morfologico delle urine: raccomandazioni per la fase postanalitica del Gruppo Interdisciplinare Laboratorio e Clinica Apparato Urinario (GIAU)
Physical, chemical and morphological urine examination: recommendations for the postanalytical phase from the Interdisciplinary Urinalysis Group (GIAU)

AUTORI

ABSTRACT

Physical, chemical and morphological urine examination: recommendations for the postanalytical phase from the Interdisciplinary Urinalysis Group (GIAU)

This document of the Interdisciplinary Urinalysis Group (GIAU) is aimed to provide recommendations on how to improve and standardize the postanalytical approach to physical, chemical and morphological urine examination (ECMU). The main tool to emphasize the value of the ECMU is the development of a laboratory report suitable for the clinical needs. As a consequence, these recommendations are mainly related to the structure and content of the report. They include: the layout, the parameters to be included, the measurement units, the reference values, the inclusion of interpretative comments. Really, an important section of the report is dedicated to the interpretative comments: these are a real add-on value and are tailored on the type of laboratory performing the analysis (general or with a specific section dedicated to the urine examination). The different levels of the laboratory competence determine the category of possible comments. The basic one concerns comments that evaluate the non-conformity of the sample (i.e. presence of urethral, seminal, vaginal, faecal contamination; too concentrated/too diluted samples). The second level of comments is dedicated mainly to the reporting of the discrepancies between the biochemical analysis and the microscopy examination (i.e. presence of haemoglobin and no erythrocyte detection; presence of leucocyte esterase and no leucocyte detection). The third level requires a specific competence of the pathologist together with a strict collaboration with the clinic; these comments are elaborated on the basis of a specific clinical request. The detection of the “decoy cells” in immunosuppressed solid organ transplant recipients, that are typical of a poliomavirus infection, is a good example of the third level of interpretative comments. A final section of the document is dedicated to the opportunity to implement and adopt specific programs of external evaluation of the urinary sediment.
After the issuing of the recommendations dedicated to pre-analytical and analytical phases, this GIAU document gives suggestions for the standardisation and harmonisation of post-analytical phase in the attempt to emphasize the diagnostic importance of ECMU.

BIBLIOGRAFIA

1. Lundberg GD. Acting on significant laboratory results. JAMA 1981;245:17623.
2. Burlina AB. Medicina di laboratorio – Fondamenti di diagnostica. Torino: CG Edizioni Medico Scientifiche, 1992.
3. Cappelletti P. Il “referto” in Medicina di Laboratorio. Riv Med Lab – JLM 2004;5:197–208.
4. Plebani M. Il referto in medicina di Laboratorio. RiMeL/IJLaM 2005;1(suppl):57-9.
5. Manoni F, Caleffi A, Gessoni G, et al.. L’esame delle urine chimico morfologico e colturale: proposta di linee guida per una procedura standardizzata della fase preanalitica. Biochim Clin 2011;35:131-9.
6. Manoni F, Gessoni G, Fogazzi GB, et al.. Esame fisico, chimico e morfologico delle urine: proposta di linee guida per la fase analitica del gruppo intersocietario analisi delle urine (GIAU). Biochim Clin 2016;40: 353-83.
7. Cappelletti P. Linee guida per il referto ematologico. Riv Med Lab – JLM 2002;3(suppl):87-93.
8. Grilli R, Penna A, Zola P, et al. Physicians’ view of practice guidelines. A survey of Italian physicians. Soc Sci Med 1996;43:1283-7.
9. Formoso G, Liberati A, Magrini N. Practice guidelines: useful and “participative” method? Survey of Italian physicians by professional set- ting. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2037-42.
10. Grilli R. AGREE uno strumento per la valutazione della qualità delle line guida. Dossier 60 Bologna. Agenzia Sanitaria Regionale dell’Emilia- Romagna; 2002. http://assr.regione.emilia-romagna.it/
pubblicazioni/dossier/doss060 (ultimo accesso: novembre 2019).
11. European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine. European uri- nalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2000;231:1-86.
12. CLSI. Urinalysis; Approved Guideline – Third edition. CLSI document GP16-A3. Wayne, PA, 2009.
13. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of suspected bacterial urinary tract infection in adults. A National Clinical Guideline. Edinburgh (Scotland), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Net- work (SIGN). SIGN publication 2006;88. https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign88.pdf (ultimo accesso: novembre 2019).
14. Kouri T, Gyory A, Rowan RM. ISLH Urinalysis Task Force. ISLH re- commended reference procedure for the enumeration of particles in urine. Lab Hematol 2003;9:58-63.
15. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al.; GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490-5.
16. Dipartimento della Programmazione e dell’Ordinameneto del Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (2012) Manuale di Formazione per il Governo Clinico: Appropriatezza. opicomo.it/documenti/Programma_del_corso_Appropriatezza.pdf (ultimo accesso: novembre 2019).
17. Hsu C, Sandford B. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess, Res Eval 2007:12.
18. Tomasik T. Reliability and validity of the Delphi method in guideline development for family physicians. Qual Prim Care 2010;18:317-26.
19. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000;32:1008-15.
20. Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, et al. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011;6:e20476.
21. MacLure K, Paudyal V, Stewart D. Reviewing the literature, how sy- stematic is systematic? Int J Clin Pharm 2016;38:685-94.
22. West LM, Diack L, Cordina M, et al. A systematic review of the literature on ‘medication wastage’: an exploration of causative factors and effect of interventions. Int J Clin Pharm 2014;36:873-81.
23. Gambaro G, Yabarek T, Graziani MS,et al.; INCIPE Study Group. Prevalence of CKD in northeastern Italy: results of the INCIPE study and comparison with NHANES. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;5:1946-53.
24. Yuno T, Hisada Y, Nishimura Y. A review of urinary examination – what medical practice expects now and what urinary examinations have to provide in the future]. Rinsho Byori 2013;61:622–8.
25. DPR 12/08/1982 n° 802. Attuazione della direttiva (CEE) n. 80/181 relativa alle unita’ di misura Gazzetta Ufficiale n° 302 del 03/11/1982. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/
eli/id/1982/11/03/082U0802/sg (ultimo accesso: novembre 2019)
26. Burnet D, Plebani M. Guida pratica all’accreditamento dei laboratiori Clinici. Milano: Biomedia Source Books, 2003.
27. Morandini M. Criteri di qualità per l’accettabilità dei campioni. RIMeL/IJLaM 2006;2:32-41.
28. Pradella M. Risultati di esami nel laboratorio accreditato ISO 15189: il nuovo paradigma. Riv Ital Med Lab 2015;11:118-21.
29. Aspevall O, Hallander H, Gant V,et al. European guidelines for urinalysis: a collaborative document produced by European clinical mi- crobiologists and clinical chemists under ECLM in collaboration with ESCMID. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001;7:173-8.
30. Lee A, McLean S. The laboratory report: a problem in communica- tion between clinician and microbiologist? Med J Aust 1977;2:858-60.
31. Pradella M, Dorizzi RM. Il problema dei valori di riferimento. In: Burlina A, editor. Trattato Italiano di Medicina di Laboratorio. Padova: Piccin edizioni, 1995.
32. Andrew CE, Hanning I, McBain AM, et al. A model for a multicentre approach to the derivation of reference intervals for thyroid hormones and testosterone for laboratories using identical analysers. Clin Chem Lab Med 2000;38:1013-9.
33. Zardo L, Secchiero S, Sciacovelli L,et al M. Referen- ce intervals: are interlaboratory differences appropriate? Clin Chem Lab Med 1999;37:1131-3.
34. Solberg HE. International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Scientific Committee, Clinical Section, Expert Panel on The- ory of Reference Values, and International Committee for Standardiza- tion in Haematology (ICSH), Standing Committee on Reference Values. Approved Recommendation (1986) on the theory of reference values. Part 1. The concept of reference values. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1987;25:337-42.
35. Petit-Clerc C, Solberg HE. Approved recommendation on the theory of reference values. Part 2. Selection of individuals for the production of reference values. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1987;25:639-44.
36. Solberg HE, PetitClerc C. International Federation of Clinical Che- mistry (IFCC), Scientific Committee, Clinical Section, Expert Panel on Theory of Reference Values. Approved recommendation (1988) on the theory of reference values. Part 3. Preparation of individuals and collec- tion of specimens for the production of reference values. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1988;26:593-8.
37. Solberg HE, Stamm D. International Federation of Clinical Chemi- stry, Scientific Division: approved recommendation on the theory of re- ference values. Part 4. Control of analytical variation in the production, transfer and application of reference values. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1991;29:531-5.
38. Solberg HE. Approved recommendations on the theory of reference values. Part 5. Statistical treatment of collected reference values. Deter- mination of reference limits. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1987;25:645-56.
39. Dybkaer R, Solberg HE. Approved recommendations on the theory of reference values. Part 6. Presentation of observed values related to refe- rence values. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1987;25:657-62.
40. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Defining, establishing, and verifying reference intervals in the clinical laboratory; approved Guideline, 3rd ed. CLSI document EP28-A3c. CLSI Wayne, PA, 2008.
41. Moore RA. On the need for evidence- based clinical biochemistry. Evid Based Med 1998;3:7-8.
42. Prinsloo PJ, Gray TA. A survey of laboratory practice in the clinical authorization and reporting of results. Ann Clin Biochem 2003;40:149-55.
43. Marshall WJ, Challand GS. Provision of interpretative comments on biochemical report forms. Ann Clin Biochem 2000;37:758-63.
44. Gruppo PHASE-Lab. Responsabilità ed etica professionale nella medicina di laboratorio. Milano: Lauri Edizioni, 2006.
45. ISO 15189:2003, Medical laboratories –Particular requirements for quality and competence. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva 2003.
46. ISO 15189: 2007 Medical laboratories-particular requirements for quality and competence. International Organization for Standardization): Geneva 2007.
47. UKAS Policy on Participation in Proficiency Testing.www.ukas.com/download/CPA/Stan- dards%20for%20the%20Medical%20Laboratory.pdf. (ultimo accesso: novembre 2019)
48. Sciacovelli L, Zardo L, Secchiero S, et al. Interpretative comments and reference ranges in EQA programs as a tool for improving laboratory appropriateness and effectiveness. Clin Chim Acta 2003;333:209-19.
49. Royal College of Pathologists. Code of practice for clinical biochemists/chemical pathologists and clinical biochemistry services. G0 27. 2011. https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/7075e884-f548-44cc-b319bc4b3233b5c9/g027_clinbiocodeofpractice_
mar11.pdf. (ultimo accesso: novembre 2019).
50. Vasikaran SD, Penberthy L, Gill J, et al. Review of a pilot quality-assessment program for interpretative comments. Ann Clin Biochem 2002;39:250-60.
51. Lim EM, Sikaris KA, Gill J, et al. Quality assessment of interpretative commenting in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem 2004;50:632-7.
52. Smith BR, Aguero-Rosenfeld M, Anastasi J, et al.; Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists. Educating medical students in laboratory medicine: a proposed curriculum. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;133:533-42.
53. Vasikaran S, Sikaris K, Kilpatrick E, et al.; IFCC WG Harmonization of Quality Assessment of Interpretative Comments. Assuring the quality of interpretative comments in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1901-11.
54. Plebani M. Interpretative commenting: a tool for improving the labo-ratory-clinical interface. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404:46-51.
55. Price C, Chrisenson R. La medicina di laboratorio basata sulle prove di efficacia: dai principi agli oiutcome. Milano: Biomedia Source Books, 2005.
56. Fogazzi GB. The Urinary Sediment an Integrated View. Third Edition. Milano: Elsevier; 2013. p. 177-220.
57. Libeer JC. Role of external quality assurance schemes in asses- sing and improving quality in medical laboratories. Clin Chim Acta 2001;309:173-7.
58. Sciacovelli L, Secchiero S, Zardo L, et al. External Quality Assessment: an effective tool for Clinical Governance in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:740-9.
59. Ceriotti F, Secchiero S, Plebani M, et al. Linee guida per la ge- stione dei Programmi di Valutazione Esterna di Qualità. Bioch Clin 2011;35:107-26.
60. Kouri TT, Gant VA, Fogazzi GB, et al. Towards European urinalysis guidelines. Introduction of a project under European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chim Acta 2000;297(Suppl 231):305-11.
61. Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI). Urinalysis; approved guidelines, 3nd Edition. CLSI document GP16-A3. CLSI Wayne, PA, 2009.
62. Kouri T, Laippala P, Kutter D,et al Quality specifications for ordinal scale measurements with multiproper- ty (multiple) urine test strips. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999;59:523-6.
63. Secchiero S, Epifani MG, Plebani M. Verso l’armonizzazione dell’a-nalisi delle urine con striscia reattiva: il ruolo di un prograqmma di VEQ. Biochim Clin 2017;41:248-57.
64. Schürer-Maly C, Wood WG, Falbo R, et al. An educational web-based external quality assessment outcome and evaluation: first experiences with urinary sediment and hemostaseology. Clin Lab 2013;59:1061-9.
65. Wood WG, Schwarz P, Illigen D, et al. Experience with an alternative form of samples for external quality assessment of urinary sediment (visual sample EQA). Clin Lab 2013;59:875-83.
66. Takubo T, Tatsumi N. Quality control in urinalysis. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 1999;30(Suppl 3):136-48.
67. Manoni F, Gessoni G, Alessio MG, et al. Gender’s equality in evaluation of urine particles: results of a multicenter study of the Italian Urinalysis Group. Clin Chim Acta 2014;427:1-5.
68. Secchiero S, Fogazzi GB, Manoni F,et al. The Italian External Quality Assessment (EQA) program on urinary sediment: results of the period 2012-2015. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53(Suppl 2):s1495-502.
69. Kilpatrick ES, Freedman DB; National Clinical Biochemistry Audit Group. A national survey of interpretative reporting in the UK. Ann Clin Biochem 2011;48:317-20.