This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert M. Donauer, MD
The Prudential Insurance Company of America Chicago

JAMA. 1978;240(19):2044.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

An article appeared in The Journal entitled "Microscopic Look at Urine Often Unnecessary" (239:13, 1978). This report indicated that a low diagnostic yield was seen on microscopic examination if findings from a macroscopic urinalysis were negative. On the contrary, I think that microscopic findings may be meaningful even where findings from macroscopic studies, including chemical screening tests, are negative. I found this to be true in 1967 when I reported a study of 10,140 specimens. To see whether the conclusions drawn then are still valid, earlier this year I had a new study done on microscopic specimens by a laboratory that serves a great number of insurance companies and analyzes as many urine specimens as any other laboratory in the world.

The processing technique for urinalysis involves centrifuging the 15-ml specimen at 3,000 rpm in a standard clinical centrifuge for four minutes. Then, 0.05 ml of the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by John D. Archer, MD, Senior Editor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?