Analysis of urinalysis laboratory report forms in medicallaboratories

Abstract

<br><b>Introduction:</b> Urinalysis is one of the most frequently performed laboratory tests. An importantfeature of urinalysis standardization is unifying laboratory report forms to enable the analysisof the results obtained in different laboratories and/or at different times.</br><br><b>Aim:</b> The aim of the study was to analyze the urinalysis laboratory report forms in medicallaboratories and to compare them with the Polish Society of Laboratory Diagnostics (PTDL)urinalysis guidelines published in 2019 (Bil-Lula et al. Diagn Lab 2019; 55: 145198).</br><br><b>Material and methods:</b> In total, 52 urinalysis laboratory reports were analyzed. The majority(85%) included dipstick and urine particle analyses. The reports were obtained from 26laboratories from 8 voivodeships in Poland. The highest percentages of laboratories werefrom Pomeranian Voivodeship (35%) and from large cities with more than 100.000 inhabitants(58%).</br><br><b>Results:</b> The reports showed high variability in the names of the parameters, the referenceranges used, and the manner of expressing the patients results. For dipstick erythrocytes,eight different expressions were used including erythrocytes, blood, red blood cells, blood(free hemoglobin). For specific gravity, eleven different reference ranges were used, and formost parameters, a significant percentage of the laboratory report forms (up to 70% for colorand clarity) had no reference ranges. There was also no consistency in the presentation of thepatients results in relation to the reference ranges. In some reports, colloquial expressions,such as sugar, transparency, nonstandard abbreviations, such as Ery/Hb, poj, andtypographical errors were present.</br><br><b>Conclusions:</b> Urinalysis reports in laboratories are not standardized, thus, it is advisable toimplement corrective actions aimed at standardizing the presentation of data. The PTDLguidelines published in 2019 can help in this regard.</br>