Comparison of two preparatory techniques for urine cytology.
J. DHUNDEE, Helen Rigby
Abstract
Open-access reader
J. DHUNDEE, Helen Rigby
Abstract
Open-access reader
Two methods of preparation of urine for cytology were compared retrospectively. In method 1 cells in the urine were fixed after the preparation of the smear; in method 2 the cells were fixed before smear preparation. Urine cytology reports were correlated with subsequent histological analysis. The specificities of urine cytology using both methods were high (99%). The sensitivity using method 1 was 87%; using method 2 it was 65%. This difference was significant. The cell preparation technique therefore significantly changes the sensitivity of urine cytology. Cellular fixation after smear preparation is preferable to smear preparation after fixation.
OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Two methods of preparation of urine for cytology were compared retrospectively. In method 1 cells in the urine were fixed after the preparation of the smear; in method 2 the cells were fixed before smear preparation. Urine cytology reports were correlated with subsequent histological analysis. The specificities of urine cytology using both methods were high (99%). The sensitivity using method 1 was 87%; using method 2 it was 65%. This difference was significant. The cell preparation technique therefore significantly changes the sensitivity of urine cytology. Cellular fixation after smear preparation is preferable to smear preparation after fixation.
Key concepts: Urine cytology, Urine, Cytology, Cytological Techniques, Medicine, Fixation (population genetics), Pathology, Urology