The consequence of omitting urine sediment microscopy in dipstick physicochemical normal samples has been highly questioned in non Brazilian literature, in which many authors consider it not necessary. Considering that most of Brazilian laboratories always perform the complete urine examination and in order to clear this doubt, a study was done in 10.234 urine samples from essentially outpatients. Among these samples, 5000 showed normal dipstick physicochemical examination. In those, an evaluation of clinical possible relevant sediment microscopy elements was studied. Casts (29 samples - 0,58%) and more than five leukocytes per field (26 samples - 0,52%) showed to have the highest incidence, while all other sediment elements had their incidence numbers in 0,4% or less. No abnormal sediment elements were found in 98,02% of these samples. The X² method (p < 0,01) was used to perform the statistical analysis; the results showed that there is no need to do the urine sediment microscopy in dipstick physicochemical normal samples. Based on these findings, it can be suggested that the suppression of the sediment examination in dipstick physicochemical normal samples will cause no impairment for both patient and physician. Then, significant savings of time and costs will be obtained, as 48,85% sediment microscopy examination routinely performed in Brazilian laboratories could be safely suppressed.
Microscopy; Costs; Urinalysis; Dipstick
