Microscopic examination of urine sediment: Phase contrast versus bright field

G. B. Fogazzi, J. Delanghe

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Today, phase contrast microscopy (PCM) is the recommended technique for manual urinary sediment (U-sed) examination. In fact, compared to bright field microscopy (BFM), it allows a better identification of most U-sed particles. Methods: The main contributions, both as original papers in medical journals and as monographs on PCM applied to U-sed examination, published in the period 1950–1982 (which was chosen because it includes the results of the most important investigations on the subject) were identified and analysed. Moreover, a brief analysis on the use of PCM in U-sed examination today was carried out. Results: After the discovery of PCM by the Dutch physicist Frits Zernike in the 1930s, several contributions were published, most of which are forgotten today. All of them demonstrated the advantages of PCM over BFM in identifying the U-sed particles, especially casts, renal tubular epithelial cells, atypical urothelial cells associated with urothelial carcinoma, and erythrocytes (which for the 1st time were classified as dysmorphic - of glomerular origin - and isomorphic - of non glomerular origin). The analysis of six recent monographs on U-sed or urinalysis, written in English and with an international distribution, demonstrated that only in two of them the U-sed particles were mostly shown by PCM. Conclusion: Several papers and monographs, published since the early 1950s, have demonstrated the advantages of PCM over BFM for U-sed examination. In spite of this, PCM is not as widely used as it should be.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)168-173
Number of pages6
JournalClinica Chimica Acta
Volume487
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2018

Fingerprint

Phase-Contrast Microscopy
Microscopic examination
Sediments
Urine
Microscopy
Urinalysis
Erythrocytes
Epithelial Cells
Carcinoma
Kidney

Keywords

  • Bright field microscopy
  • Phase contrast microscopy
  • Urinalysis
  • Urinary microscopy
  • Urinary sediment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry
  • Clinical Biochemistry
  • Biochemistry, medical

Cite this

Microscopic examination of urine sediment : Phase contrast versus bright field. / Fogazzi, G. B.; Delanghe, J.

In: Clinica Chimica Acta, Vol. 487, 01.12.2018, p. 168-173.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Fogazzi, G. B. ; Delanghe, J. / Microscopic examination of urine sediment : Phase contrast versus bright field. In: Clinica Chimica Acta. 2018 ; Vol. 487. pp. 168-173.
@article{04903249f666400f9f0e8efd5f5b3e77,
title = "Microscopic examination of urine sediment: Phase contrast versus bright field",
abstract = "Background: Today, phase contrast microscopy (PCM) is the recommended technique for manual urinary sediment (U-sed) examination. In fact, compared to bright field microscopy (BFM), it allows a better identification of most U-sed particles. Methods: The main contributions, both as original papers in medical journals and as monographs on PCM applied to U-sed examination, published in the period 1950–1982 (which was chosen because it includes the results of the most important investigations on the subject) were identified and analysed. Moreover, a brief analysis on the use of PCM in U-sed examination today was carried out. Results: After the discovery of PCM by the Dutch physicist Frits Zernike in the 1930s, several contributions were published, most of which are forgotten today. All of them demonstrated the advantages of PCM over BFM in identifying the U-sed particles, especially casts, renal tubular epithelial cells, atypical urothelial cells associated with urothelial carcinoma, and erythrocytes (which for the 1st time were classified as dysmorphic - of glomerular origin - and isomorphic - of non glomerular origin). The analysis of six recent monographs on U-sed or urinalysis, written in English and with an international distribution, demonstrated that only in two of them the U-sed particles were mostly shown by PCM. Conclusion: Several papers and monographs, published since the early 1950s, have demonstrated the advantages of PCM over BFM for U-sed examination. In spite of this, PCM is not as widely used as it should be.",
keywords = "Bright field microscopy, Phase contrast microscopy, Urinalysis, Urinary microscopy, Urinary sediment",
author = "Fogazzi, {G. B.} and J. Delanghe",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cca.2018.09.036",
language = "English",
volume = "487",
pages = "168--173",
journal = "Clinica Chimica Acta",
issn = "0009-8981",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Microscopic examination of urine sediment

T2 - Phase contrast versus bright field

AU - Fogazzi, G. B.

AU - Delanghe, J.

PY - 2018/12/1

Y1 - 2018/12/1

N2 - Background: Today, phase contrast microscopy (PCM) is the recommended technique for manual urinary sediment (U-sed) examination. In fact, compared to bright field microscopy (BFM), it allows a better identification of most U-sed particles. Methods: The main contributions, both as original papers in medical journals and as monographs on PCM applied to U-sed examination, published in the period 1950–1982 (which was chosen because it includes the results of the most important investigations on the subject) were identified and analysed. Moreover, a brief analysis on the use of PCM in U-sed examination today was carried out. Results: After the discovery of PCM by the Dutch physicist Frits Zernike in the 1930s, several contributions were published, most of which are forgotten today. All of them demonstrated the advantages of PCM over BFM in identifying the U-sed particles, especially casts, renal tubular epithelial cells, atypical urothelial cells associated with urothelial carcinoma, and erythrocytes (which for the 1st time were classified as dysmorphic - of glomerular origin - and isomorphic - of non glomerular origin). The analysis of six recent monographs on U-sed or urinalysis, written in English and with an international distribution, demonstrated that only in two of them the U-sed particles were mostly shown by PCM. Conclusion: Several papers and monographs, published since the early 1950s, have demonstrated the advantages of PCM over BFM for U-sed examination. In spite of this, PCM is not as widely used as it should be.

AB - Background: Today, phase contrast microscopy (PCM) is the recommended technique for manual urinary sediment (U-sed) examination. In fact, compared to bright field microscopy (BFM), it allows a better identification of most U-sed particles. Methods: The main contributions, both as original papers in medical journals and as monographs on PCM applied to U-sed examination, published in the period 1950–1982 (which was chosen because it includes the results of the most important investigations on the subject) were identified and analysed. Moreover, a brief analysis on the use of PCM in U-sed examination today was carried out. Results: After the discovery of PCM by the Dutch physicist Frits Zernike in the 1930s, several contributions were published, most of which are forgotten today. All of them demonstrated the advantages of PCM over BFM in identifying the U-sed particles, especially casts, renal tubular epithelial cells, atypical urothelial cells associated with urothelial carcinoma, and erythrocytes (which for the 1st time were classified as dysmorphic - of glomerular origin - and isomorphic - of non glomerular origin). The analysis of six recent monographs on U-sed or urinalysis, written in English and with an international distribution, demonstrated that only in two of them the U-sed particles were mostly shown by PCM. Conclusion: Several papers and monographs, published since the early 1950s, have demonstrated the advantages of PCM over BFM for U-sed examination. In spite of this, PCM is not as widely used as it should be.

KW - Bright field microscopy

KW - Phase contrast microscopy

KW - Urinalysis

KW - Urinary microscopy

KW - Urinary sediment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054341084&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054341084&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cca.2018.09.036

DO - 10.1016/j.cca.2018.09.036

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85054341084

VL - 487

SP - 168

EP - 173

JO - Clinica Chimica Acta

JF - Clinica Chimica Acta

SN - 0009-8981

ER -