S.Yu. Meshchurova1, A.G. Korobova2, L.M. Samokhodskaya3

1–3 University Clinic, Lomonosov Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia)

1 svetlana.meschurova@gmail.com, 2 amalofeeva@yandex.ru, 3 slm@fbm.msu.ru

Rapid acquisition of microbiological results necessitates the use of automated diagnostic systems. However, these methods often have limitations related to high costs or reduced sensitivity and specificity.

The objective of this study was to identify patients who would benefit from employing an automated system for urine microbiological analysis.

The study included 572 urine samples collected from both outpatients and inpatients at the University Clinic of Lomonosov Moscow State University. Samples were analyzed using both a standard culture method and an automated system. According to the standard culture method, 67.6 % of samples were positive, while the automated system detected microbial growth in only 41.4 % of samples. Eight positive results from the automated system were not confirmed by culture on chromogenic media. The automated system demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 59.2 % and specificity of 96.0 % relative to the culture method as the reference standard. Leukocyturia was associated with a significant increase in the sensitivity of microorganism detection using an automated system (70.0 % versus 38.0 %). At the same time, the presence of red blood cells in the sample and variations in urine density did not reduce the sensitivity and specificity of the method. In addition, the sensitivity of bacteriuria detection was higher for samples with uropathogens (70.6 %) and for samples with bacterial counts ≥1×105 CFU/ml (90.5 %).

For patients with signs of urinary tract infections, the analyzer can provide information about the presence of microorganisms in the urine and their titers can be obtained on the first day of the study. Sensitivity of the method significantly increases in samples from patients with leukocyturia and uropathogens, as well as with high titers of microorganisms in urine. Using an automated system is recommended for patients with signs of urinary tract infection.

Meshchurova S.Yu., Korobova A.G., Samokhodskaya L.M. Detection of bacteriuria using an automatic bacteriological analyzer. Technologies of Living Systems. 2026. V. 23. № 1. Р. 58-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18127/j20700997-202601-06 (In Russian).

1. Leber A.L. Clinical microbiology procedures handbook. Washington, DC: ASM Press. 2016. 2946 p.
2. Rukovodstva po klinicheskoj laboratornoj diagnostiki «Bakteriologicheskij analiz mochi». Federaciya laboratornoj mediciny. 2013. 33 s. (in Russian).
3. Kozlov R.S., Palagin I.S., Ivanchik N.V. i dr. Nacional'nyj monitoring antibiotikorezistentnosti vozbuditelej vnebol'nichnyh infekcij mochevyh putej v Rossii: rezul'taty mnogocentrovogo epidemiologicheskogo issledovaniya «DARMIS-2023». Klinicheskaya mikrobiologiya i antimikrobnaya himioterapiya. 2024. T. 26. № 3. S. 328–337. (in Russian).
4. McLellan L.K., Hunstad D.A. Urinary Tract Infection: Pathogenesis and Outlook. Trends in Molecular Medicine. 2016. V. 22. № 11. P. 946–957.
5. Demir C., Metin S. Microorganisms grown in urine cultures and antimicrobial resistance patterns: A randomised retrospective analysis from a tertiary hospital. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2023. V. 17. № 3. P. 337–344.
6. Perepanova T.S., Kozlov R.S., Dekhnich A.V. i dr. Vybor antimikrobnyh preparatov pri infekcii mochevyvodyashchih putej. Urologiya. 2012. № 2. S. 4–8. (in Russian).
7. Alov N.V., Barbalat Yu.A., Borzenko A.G. i dr. Osnovy analiticheskoj himii. M.: Akademiya. 2012. 416 s. (in Russian).
8. Sosnin D.Yu. Udel'nyj ves i osmolyarnost' mochi. Harakteristika i kliniko-diagnosticheskoe znachenie pokazatelej. Tradicionnye i sovremennye podhody k issledovaniyu mochi. Obshchij analiz i ocenka citokinovogo profilya. 2018. S. 39–51. (in Russian).
9. Kolyasnikova N.M., Tivanova E.V., Timoshina O.Yu., Stankevich D.S. Bakteriologicheskij posev mochi za 4 chasa s primeneniem metoda lazernogo svetorasseyaniya: sravnenie s tradicionnym posevom na chashki Petri. Poliklinika. 2015. № 6-1. S. 85–88. (in Russian).
10. Ilki A., Bekdemir P., Ulger N., Soyletir G. Rapid reporting of urine culture results: impact of the uro-quick screening system. The new microbiologica. 2010. V. 33. № 2. P. 147–153.
11. Marschal M., Wienke M., Hoering S. et al. Evaluation of 3 different rapid automated systems for diagnosis of urinary tract infections. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease. 2012. V. 72. № 2. P. 125–130.
12. Tekhnika sbora i transportirovaniya biomaterialov v mikrobiologicheskie laboratorii: Metodicheskie ukazaniya. Federal'nyj centr gigieny i epidemiologii Rospotrebnadzora. M.: 2006. 126 s. (in Russian).
13. Sizencov A.N., Kvan O.V., Gavrish I.A. i dr. Opredelenie minimal'nyh podavlyayushchih koncentracij solej makroelementov na rost issleduemyh shtammov mikroorganizmov. Tekhnologii zhivyh sistem. 2017. T. 14. № 6. S. 18–25. (in Russian).
14. Korobova A.G., Meshchurova S.Yu., Trushina E.E., Samohodskaya L.M. Opyt ispol'zovaniya avtomaticheskogo analizatora dlya diagnostiki infekcij mochevyvodyashchih putej. Klinicheskaya mikrobiologiya i antimikrobnaya himioterapiya. 2023. T. 25. №4. S. 408–414. (in Russian).