Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How the IDEXX SediVue compares to manual urine tests in dogs and cats
By Hernandez, Annalisa M et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2019·Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of the performance of the IDEXX SediVue Dx® with manual microscopy for the detection of cells and 2 crystal types in canine and feline urine.
Plain-English summary
A study looked at how well the IDEXX SediVue Dx Urine Sediment Analyzer works compared to traditional manual microscopy for checking urine samples from dogs and cats. The SediVue was able to accurately detect red blood cells, white blood cells, and certain types of crystals in urine, showing good results overall. However, it struggled more with identifying some types of epithelial cells. While the SediVue can help veterinarians analyze urine more efficiently, there is still room for improvement in detecting all cell types.
People also search for: dog urine test results · cat urinary crystals treatment · IDEXX SediVue urine analysis accuracy
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microscopic evaluation of urine is inconsistently performed in veterinary clinics. The IDEXX SediVue Dx® Urine Sediment Analyzer (SediVue) recently was introduced for automated analysis of canine and feline urine and may facilitate performance of urinalyses in practice. OBJECTIVE: Compare the performance of the SediVue with manual microscopy for detecting clinically relevant numbers of cells and 2 crystal types. SAMPLES: Five-hundred thirty urine samples (82% canine, 18% feline). METHODS: For SediVue analysis (software versions [SW] 1.0.0.0 and 1.0.1.3), uncentrifuged urine was pipetted into a cartridge. Images were captured and processed using a convolutional neural network algorithm. For manual microscopy, urine was centrifuged to obtain sediment. To determine sensitivity and specificity of the SediVue compared with manual microscopy, thresholds were set at ≥5/high power field (hpf) for red blood cells (RBC) and white blood cells (WBC) and ≥1/hpf for squamous epithelial cells (sqEPI), non-squamous epithelial cells (nsEPI), struvite crystals (STR), and calcium oxalate dihydrate crystals (CaOx Di). RESULTS: The sensitivity of the SediVue (SW1.0.1.3) was 85%-90% for the detection of RBC, WBC, and STR; 75% for CaOx Di; 71% for nsEPI; and 33% for sqEPI. Specificity was 99% for sqEPI and CaOx Di; 87%-90% for RBC, WBC, and nsEPI; and 84% for STR. Compared to SW1.0.0.0, SW1.0.1.3 had increased sensitivity but decreased specificity. Performance was similar for canine versus feline and fresh versus stored urine samples. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The SediVue exhibits good agreement with manual microscopy for the detection of most formed elements evaluated, but improvement is needed for epithelial cells.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30511380/