Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org
  • Register
  • Log in
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
Editorial

Quality in urine microscopy: The eyes of the beholder

James F. Simon, MD and Arani Nanavati, MD
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine January 2018, 85 (1) 22-24; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.85a.17085
James F. Simon
Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Cleveland Clinic; Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Arani Nanavati
Transplant Nephrology Fellow, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Cleveland Clinic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The urine is the window to the kidney. This oft-repeated adage impresses upon medical students and residents the importance of urine microscopy in the evaluation of patients with renal disorders.

See related article, page 12

While this phrase is likely an adaptation of the idea in ancient times that the urine reflected on humors or the quality of the soul, the understanding of the relevance of urine findings to the state of the kidneys likely rests with the pioneers of urine microscopy. As reviewed by Fogazzi and Cameron,1,2 the origins of direct inspection of urine under a microscope lie in the 17th century, with industrious physicians who used rudimentary microscopes to identify basic structures in the urine and correlated them to clinical presentations.1 At first, only larger structures could be seen, mostly crystals in patients with nephrolithiasis. As microscopes advanced, smaller structures such as “corpuscles” and “cylinders” could be seen that described cells and casts.1

In correlating these findings to patient presentations, a rudimentary understanding of renal pathology evolved long before the advent of the kidney biopsy. Lipid droplets were seen1 in patients swollen from dropsy, and later known to have nephrotic syndromes. In 1872, Harley first described the altered morphology of dysmorphic red blood cells in patients with Bright disease or glomerulonephritis.1,3 In 1979, Birch and Fairley recognized that the presence of acanthocytes differentiated glomerular from nonglomerular hematuria.4

DYSMORPHIC RED BLOOD CELLS: TYPES AND SIGNIFICANCE

The term dysmorphic refers to any misshapen red blood cell found in the urine. Dysmorphic cells have a variety of causes. The term acanthocyte is reserved for red blood cells that show evidence of damage thought to be induced by passage through the glomerular basement membrane, characterized by vesicle-shaped protrusions or blebs (Figure 1). These cells are considered quite specific for glomerular hematuria. Köhler et al found that in patients with biopsy-proven glomerular disease, 12.4% of excreted cells were acanthocytes, whereas they were rarely found in people with nonglomerular hematuria.5 As these cells then pass through the renal tubules, they can become encased in Tamm-Horsfall proteins, forming red blood cell casts (Figure 2), another hallmark of glomerular disease.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

An acanthocyte seen in a patient with glomerulonephritis. The arrow notes a typical bleb (× 40).

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2

A red blood cell cast in a patient with glomerulonephritis. Casts form when red blood cells that have passed through a damaged glomerular basement membrane are encased in urinary proteins before being excreted into the urine (× 40).

The kidney biopsy from a patient with immunoglobulin A nephropathy presented by Daza et al in this issue6 reminds us of the amazing pathophysiology of glomerular disease. A red blood cell can somehow contort enough to squeeze through the pores of an inflamed glomerular basement membrane roughly one-tenth its size, with only blebbing to show for it. The image Daza et al present captures this rarely seen event and should give us pause. In an age when the electronic medical record too often replaces the patient history, when ultrasonography and echocardiography are replacing the stethoscope, and when reports by machines and technicians with no understanding of the patient’s condition replace direct examination of bodily fluids, there is merit in seeing what is going on for ourselves. This image allows us to understand the value of urine microscopy in the workup of patients with renal disease.

URINE MICROSCOPY: THE NEPHROLOGIST’S ROLE

The tools used in urine microscopy have advanced significantly since its advent. But not all advances have led to improved patient care. Laboratories have trained technicians to perform urine microscopy. Analyzers can identify basic urinary structures using algorithms to compare them against stored reference images. More important, urine microscopy has been categorized by accreditation and inspection bodies as a “test” rather than a physician-performed competency. As such, definitions of quality in urine microscopy have shifted from the application of urinary findings to the care of the patient to the reproducibility of identifying individual structures in ways that can be documented with quality checks performed by nonclinicians. And since the governing bodies require laboratories to adhere to burdensome procedures to maintain accreditation (eg, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments), many hospitals have closed nephrologist-based urine laboratories.

This would be acceptable if laboratory-generated reports provided information equivalent to that obtained by the nephrologist. But such reports rarely include anything beyond the most rudimentary findings. In these reports, the red blood cell is not differentiated as dysmorphic or monomorphic. All casts are granular. Crystals are often the highlight of the report, usually an incidental finding of little relevance. Phase contrast and polarization are never performed.

Despite the poor quality of data provided in these reports, because of increasing regulations and time restrictions, a dwindling number of nephrologists perform urine microscopy even at teaching institutions. In an informal 2009 survey of nephrology fellowship program directors, 79% of responding programs relied solely on lab-generated reports for microscopic findings (verbal communication, Perazella, 2017).

There is general concern among medical educators about the surrendering of the physical examination and other techniques to technology.7,8 However, in many cases, such changes may improve the ability to make a correct diagnosis. When performed properly, urine microscopy can help determine the need for kidney biopsy, differentiate causes of acute kidney injury, and help guide decisions about therapy. Perazella showed that urine microscopy could reliably differentiate acute tubular necrosis from prerenal azotemia.9 Further, the severity of findings on urine microscopy has been associated with worse renal outcomes.10 At our institution, nephrologist-performed urine microscopy resulted in a change in cause of acute kidney injury in 25% of cases and a concrete change in management in 12% of patients (unpublished data).

With this in mind, it is concerning that the only evidence in the literature on this topic demonstrated that laboratory-based urine microscopy is actually a hindrance to its underlying purpose in acute kidney injury, which is to help identify the cause of the injury. Tsai et al11 showed that nephrologists identified the cause of acute kidney injury correctly 90% of the time when they performed their own urine microscopy, but this dropped to 23% when they relied on a laboratory-generated report. Interestingly, knowing the patient’s clinical history when performing the microscopy was important, as the accuracy was 69% when a report of another nephrologist’s microscopy findings was used.11

APPLYING RESULTS TO THE PATIENT

The purpose of urine microscopy in clinical care is to identify and understand the findings as they apply to the patient. When viewed from this perspective, the renal patient is clearly best served when the nephrologist familiar with the case performs urine microscopy, rather than a technician or analyzer in remote parts of the hospital with no connection to the patient.

Advances in technology or streamlining of hospital services do not always produce improvements in patient care, and how we define quality is integral to identifying when this is the case. Quality checklists can serve as guides to safe patient care but should not replace clinical decision-making. Direct physician involvement with our patients has concrete benefits, whether taking a history, performing a physical examination, reviewing radiologic images, or looking at specimens such as urine. It allows us to experience the amazing pathophysiology of human illness and to understand the nuances unique to each of our patients.

But most important, it reinforces the need for the direct bond, both emotional and physical, between us as healers and our patients.

  • Copyright © 2018 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Fogazzi GB,
    2. Cameron JS
    . Urinary microscopy from the seventeenth century to the present day. Kidney Int 1996; 50:1058–1068.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Cameron JS
    . A history of urine microscopy. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015; 53(suppl 2):s1453–s1464.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Harley G
    . The Urine and Its Derangements. London: J and A Churchill, 1872:178–179.
  4. ↵
    1. Birch DF,
    2. Fairley K
    . Hematuria: glomerular or non-glomerular? Lancet 1979; 314:845–846.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Köhler H,
    2. Wandel E,
    3. Brunck B
    . Acanthocyturia–a characteristic marker for glomerular bleeding. Kidney Int 1991; 40:115–120.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Daza JL,
    2. De Rosa M,
    3. De Rosa G
    . Dysmorphic red blood cells. Cleve Clin J Med 2018; 85:12–13.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Jauhar S
    . The demise of the physical exam. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:548–551.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Mangione S
    . When the tail wags the dog: clinical skills in the age of technology. Cleve Clin J Med 2017; 84:278–280.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Perazella MA,
    2. Coca SG,
    3. Kanbay M,
    4. Brewster UC,
    5. Parikh CR
    . Diagnostic value of urine microscopy for differential diagnosis of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 3:1615–1619.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Perazella MA,
    2. Coca SG,
    3. Hall IE,
    4. Iyanam U,
    5. Koraishy M,
    6. Parikh CR
    . Urine microscopy is associated with severity and worsening of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 5:402–408.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Tsai JJ,
    2. Yeun JY,
    3. Kumar VA,
    4. Don BR
    . Comparison and interpretation of urinalysis performed by a nephrologist versus a hospital-based clinical laboratory. Am J Kidney Dis 2005; 46:820–829.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: 85 (1)
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Vol. 85, Issue 1
1 Jan 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quality in urine microscopy: The eyes of the beholder
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Quality in urine microscopy: The eyes of the beholder
James F. Simon, Arani Nanavati
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Jan 2018, 85 (1) 22-24; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.85a.17085

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Quality in urine microscopy: The eyes of the beholder
James F. Simon, Arani Nanavati
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Jan 2018, 85 (1) 22-24; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.85a.17085
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • DYSMORPHIC RED BLOOD CELLS: TYPES AND SIGNIFICANCE
    • URINE MICROSCOPY: THE NEPHROLOGIST’S ROLE
    • APPLYING RESULTS TO THE PATIENT
    • REFERENCES
    • ADDITIONAL READING
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Dysmorphic red blood cell formation
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The beat goes on: Highlights from the new American and European A-fib guidelines
  • Subclinical hypothyroidism: What’s in a name?
  • Heart to heart: Progress in cardiovascular disease prevention for people living with HIV
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Nephrology

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Supplements
  • Article Type
  • Specialty
  • CME/MOC Articles
  • CME/MOC Calendar
  • Media Kit

Authors & Reviewers

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Authors & Reviewers
  • Subscriptions
  • About CCJM
  • Contact Us
  • Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Education
  • Consult QD

Share your suggestions!

Copyright © 2025 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved. The information provided is for educational purposes only. Use of this website is subject to the website terms of use and privacy policy. 

Powered by HighWire