Evaluation of alternative approaches to the reference method for the urine osmolality test

AUTORI

ABSTRACT

Introduction: urine osmolality, a crucial test for differential diagnosis of hydro-electrolytic disorders, is mainly assessed by measuring the colligative properties of solutes. Many approaches were attempted to assess urine osmolality without this reference technique, mainly based on the use of formulas. In this study the performance of the Sysmex UF-4000/5000 system, which provides an alternative approach for estimating urine osmolality by means of conductivity, has been evaluated.
Methods: the Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots have been used to compare the results obtained by the reference method and calculated with seven different forlmulas from 122 routine urine samples.
Results: none of the formulas demonstrated acceptable performances. Sysmex-calculated osmolality showed no systematic error and a bias to the reference method lower than the minimum acceptable as calculated according to biological variation data. To evaluate a possible effect of glucose on colligative properties, we also used a subset of samples with glucose ≤5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL); in these samples, the Sysmex-calculated osmolality and one of the formulas – 1.09 [1.86 Na (mmol/L) + glucose (mmol/L) + urea (mmol/L)] – showed a variation lower than desirable bias.
Discussion: the Sysmex UF-4000 analyzer demonstrated a good agreement with the reference technique, but a significant bias was still present. The seven different formulas tested in our investigation showed even lower analytical performances, so that the use of Sysmex analyzer may be preferable in facilities where osmometers are unavailable

BIBLIOGRAFIA

1. Mount DB. Fluid and electrolyte disturbances. In: Loscalzo J, Fauci A, Kasper D, Hauser S, Longo D, Jameson JL, curatori. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine. 21a ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2022.
2. Manoni F, Gessoni G, Fogazzi GB, Alessio MG, Ravasio R, Caleffi A, et al. Esame fisico, chimico e morfologico delle urine: raccomandazioni per la fase postanalitica del Gruppo Interdisciplinare Laboratorio e Clinica Apparato Urinario (Giau). Ital J Lab Med 2019;15:46-59.
3. Kellogg M, Benco J, Cervinski MA. Electrolytes and blood gases. In: Rifari N, Chiu RWK, Young I, Burnham CAD, Witwer CT, curatori. Tietz textbook of laboratory medicine. 7a ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2022.
4. Bianchi V, Bidone P, Arfini C. Siero ed urine: osmolalità calcolata o osmolalità misurata? Ital J Lab Med 2009;5:206-11
5. Khajuria A, Krahn J. Osmolality revisited—Deriving and validating the best formula for calculated osmolality. Clin Biochem 2005;386:514-9
6. Dorwart WV, Chalmers L. Comparison of methods for calculating serum osmolality form chemical concentrations, and the prognostic value of such calculations. Clin Chem 1975;21:190-4.
7. Lynd LD, Richardson KJ, Purssell RA, Abu-Laban RB, Brubacher JR, Lepik KJ, et al. An evaluation of the osmole gap as a screening test for toxic alcohol poisoning. BMC Emerg Med 2008;8:5.
8. Purssell RA, Lynd LD, Koga Y. The use of the osmole gap as a screening test for the presence of exogenous substances. Toxicol Rev 2004;23:189-202.
9. Purssell RA, Pudek M, Brubacher J, Abu-Laban RB. Derivation and validation of a formula to calculate the contribution of ethanol to the osmolal gap. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:653-9.
10. Silvilotti MLA, Collier CP, Choi SB. Ethanol and the osmolal gap. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40:656-7; author reply 657-658.
11. Mycyk MB, Aks SE. A visual schematic for clarifying the temporal relationship between the anion and osmol gaps in toxic alcohol poisoning. Am J Emerg Med 2003;21:333-5.
12. Vidali M, Tronchin M, Dittadi R. Protocollo per la comparazione di due metodi analitici di laboratorio. Biochim Clin 2016;40:129-42.
13. Cheuvront SN, Ely BR, Kenefick RW, Sawka MN. Biological variation and diagnostic accuracy of dehydration assessment markers. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;92:565-73.
14. EFLM biological variation (Osmolality). https://biologicalvariation.eu/bv_specifications/3943 (ultimo accesso: 15 aprile 2024)
15. Fraser CG, Hyltoft Petersen P, Libeer JC, Ricos C. Proposals for setting generally applicable quality goals solely based on biology. Ann Clin Biochem 1997;34:8-12.
16. Oyaert M, Speeckaert MM, Delanghe JR. Estimated urinary osmolality based on combined urinalysis parameters: a critical evaluation.CCLM 2019;57:1169-76.
17. Yoo D, Lee SM, Moon SY, Kim I, Chang CL. Evaluation of conductivity-based osmolality measurement in urine using the Sysmex UF5000. J Clin Lab Anal 2021;35:e23586.
18. Yis O, Alisik M, Bugdayci G, Sert M, Erdogan U, Ates M. Performance evaluation of urine osmolality measurement on sysmex uf-5000 and the effect of molecules and particles in urine. Clin Lab 2023;69:220536.