Cross-sectional diagnostic study evaluates urinary red blood cell analysis for glomerular hematuria, suggesting improved detection methods.
Background: Differentiating glomerular from non-glomerular hematuria remains challenging. Automated urine analyzers with red blood cell (RBC) discrimination algorithms may provide an adjunct to conventional urine microscopy. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the UF-5000 analyzer for detecting glomerular hematuria (GH). Methods: In this cross-sectional diagnostic study, patients with hematuria were classified into a GH group with biopsy-proven glomerular disease and a non-glomerular hematuria (NGH) group with non-glomerular causes confirmed by clinical, radiological, and/or pathological evaluation. Urine specimens were analyzed by a technician, a nephrology fellow, and the UF-5000 analyzer. Diagnostic performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 201 patients were included, comprising 101 in the GH group and 100 in the NGH group. Urinary RBC distribution (URD) from UF-5000 analyzer was significantly higher in the GH group (66.3 ± 23.6 vs. 12.6 ± 19.8%; p < 0.0001). URD demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance among evaluated UF-5000 parameters, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.946 (95% CI 0.914–0.979). The optimal Youden-derived URD cutoff ≥ 25% yielded 91.1% sensitivity and 89.0% specificity for identifying GH. Compared with microscopy, URD showed higher sensitivity than technician-performed microscopy (91.1% vs. 60.4%; p < 0.001) and similar performance to fellow-performed microscopy (91.1% vs. 83.2%; p = 0.237). Performance remained consistent across RBC count strata and major glomerular disease subtypes. Conclusions: URD was strongly associated with GH and demonstrated good discriminatory performance in this biopsy-based cohort. Automated urinary RBC analysis may complement conventional urine microscopy in hematuria evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Larpparisuth et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: