论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨尿干化学法联合尿沉渣法用于尿液检验的临床效果。方法:选择余姚市中医医院门诊行尿常规检验的疑似尿路感染患者200例(2018年1－10月)进行前瞻性研究，采集200例患者的新鲜晨尿标本，分别采用尿干化学分析仪、尿沉渣分析仪对尿液标本进行检测，比较尿干化学法、尿沉渣法的尿常规检测指标。以尿液细菌培养结果为参照，计算和比较尿干化学法、尿沉渣法、尿干化学法＋尿沉渣法对尿路感染的诊断灵敏度、特异度、准确率，再采用一致性检验，分析尿干化学法、尿沉渣法、尿干化学法＋尿沉渣法与尿液细菌培养结果的一致性。结果:(1)尿干化学法、尿沉渣法对尿红细胞、白细胞、透明管型等指标的检测结果比较，差异均无统计学意义(n t＝0.562、0.343、0.901，均n P>0.05)。(2)200例疑似尿路感染患者中，有157例患者经尿液细菌培养证实为尿路感染，其余43例无尿路感染。尿干化学法、尿沉渣法对尿路感染的诊断灵敏度、特异度、准确率比较，差异均无统计学意义(χn 2＝0.120、0.081、0.022，均n P>0.05)，但尿干化学法＋尿沉渣法对尿路感染的诊断灵敏度、特异度、准确率分别为96.18%、97.67%、96.50%，均高于尿干化学法、尿沉渣法(χn 2＝6.497、6.081、11.923、8.219、4.962、12.858，均n P0.05). (2)Among 200 suspected patients with urinary tract infection, 157 patients were confirmed to have urinary tract infection by urine bacterial culture, and the remaining 43 patients had no urinary tract infection.The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy of urine dry chemistry method and urine sediment method in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection had no statistically significant differences (χn 2=0.120, 0.081, 0.022, all n P>0.05). But the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy of urine dry chemistry method + urine sediment method in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection were 96.18%, 97.67%, 96.50%, respectively, which were higher than those of the urine dry chemistry method and urine sediment method (χn 2=6.497, 6.081, 11.923, 8.219, 4.962, 12.858, all n P<0.05). According to the consistency analysis, the diagnosis results of urinary tract infection by urine dry chemical method and urine sediment method were in good consistency with the results of urine bacterial culture, with the Kappa value of 0.854, while the consistency of urine dry chemical method, urine sediment method with the urine bacterial culture results were all moderate, with the Kappa value of 0.642 and 0.637, respectively.n Conclusion:The combination of urine dry chemical method and urine sediment method can improve the accuracy of urine routine examination and improve the value of urine routine examination in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection.