Login
Communauté Vinci
Extérieur
Si votre nom d'utilisateur ne se termine pas par @vinci.be ou @student.vinci.be, utilisez le formulaire ci-dessous pour accéder à votre compte de lecteur.
Titre : | Étude comparative de différentes méthodes de mesure de pH et de densité urinaire |
Auteurs : | Nora ALAOUI MEKRAOUI, Auteur ; Massin LEBITASY, Promoteur |
Type de document : | Travail de fin d'études |
Editeur : | Bruxelles : Institut Paul Lambin, 2020 |
Langues: | Français |
Index. décimale : | TFE - Biologie médicale |
Résumé : |
Urinalysis provides important information about a patients health, especially about kidney function. A multitude of parameters can be tested on urine, but the study is focused on urine pH and specific gravity (SG). To determine these two parameters, there are different methods in laboratory. However, most of these methods have never been compared to their respective reference method.
The aim of this study is to compare the different measurement methods of urine pH and specific gravity with their respective reference method. To determine urine pH, we had four methods to test: pH indicator paper (Colorimetric method-Visual reading), Cobas (Colorimetric method-Electronic reading), UC-Max (Colorimetric method-Electronic reading), and pH-meter (potentiometric method). The last one is used as the reference method. For urine specific gravity, two methods were compared: UC-Max (Refractometric method- Electronic reading) and Refractometer (Refractometric method-Visual reading) which is used as the reference method. A total of 220 urines samples from daily clinical routine were randomly selected. The pH and SG measurements were performed on each sample by the different methods. A statistical study was then achieved. To assess the agreement between each pH measurement method and the reference one, we used Bland Altman plot. We also used Friedman and Dunns test to determine significative difference between the methods. Bland Altman analysis has shown acceptable agreement between each method of pH and the reference method. The bias of pH indicator paper, Cobas and UC-Max against the pH meter were all clinically acceptable. Friedmans test showed a significative difference between all the methods. Dunns test revealed that the nearest method to the pH meter was the pH indicator paper. Regarding urine SG methods, we used Passing-Bablok regression in order to test the comparison between the UC-Max and the Refractometer. The Bland Altman plot was also used. Passing-Bablok regression showed a systematic and proportional difference between Refractometer and UC-Max. But the Bland Altman plot showed an excellent agreement between them. The bias was close to 0, which is clinically acceptable. In conclusion, each method of urine pH and specific gravity showed acceptable agreement with their respective reference method. They can therefore all be used interchangeably. |
Accès : | Identifiez-vous avant d'accéder au document électronique |
Disponible en ligne : | Oui |
Lieu du stage : | LHUB-ULB Laboratoire de Biochimie |
Département : | Biologie médicale |
Documents numériques (1)
Ce document n'est visible qu'après identification
TFE biologie médicale Adobe Acrobat PDF |