Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background The morphological assessment of urinary erythrocytes (uRBC) is a convenient screening tool for the differentiation of nephrological (dysmorphic) and urological (isomorphic) causes of hematuria. Considering the morphological heterogeneity, this analysis is often perceived as difficult. There is no clear (inter)national consensus and there is a lack of external quality assessment programs. To gain insight into the heterogeneity within and between laboratories, we scrutinized the current state of this analysis in Dutch medical laboratories. Methods The laboratories, affiliated with the Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories, were invited to participate in a web-based survey, consisting of two questionnaires. The first one provided information about the institution and laboratory organization, and the second explored the variability in the morphological analysis of uRBC on the basis of categorization of 160 uRBC images. Statistical analysis was premised on binomial significance testing and principal component analysis. Results Nearly one third of the Dutch medical laboratories (65/191) with 167 staff members participated in the survey. Most of these laboratories (83%) were an integral part of secondary care. The statistical analysis of the evaluations of the participants in comparison to the consensus (three experts from two different medical laboratories) suggested a great degree of heterogeneity in the agreement. Nearly half of the participants consciously disagreed with the consensus, whereas one fifth demonstrated a random relationship with it. Conclusions In Dutch medical laboratories, results from morphological analysis of uRBC are heterogeneous, which point out the necessity for standardization and harmonization.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0236 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!