Home > Journals > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio > Past Issues > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2021 Giugno;17(2) > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2021 Giugno;17(2):115-25



Publishing options
To subscribe
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2021 Giugno;17(2):115-25

DOI: 10.23736/S1825-859X.21.00100-6


language: Italian

Results of the survey on chemical and morphological examination of urine in Italy issued by the Italian Interdisciplinary Urinalysis Group (GIAU)

Rudi RAVASIO 1, Maria A. BURGIO 2 , Fiamma BALBONI 3, Fabio MANONI 4, a nome del Gruppo Intersocietario Laboratorio e Clinica dell’Apparato Urinario (GIAU)

1 Laboratorio Analisi Chimico Cliniche Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italia; 2 Unità Operativa di Patologia Clinica, Ospedale Barone Lombardo, Canicattì, Agrigento, Italia; 3 Laboratorio Analisi IFCA, Firenze, Italia; 4 Dipartimento dei Servizi di Diagnosi e Cura, Ospedali Riuniti Padova Sud “Madre Teresa di Calcutta”, Monselice, Padova, Italia

BACKGROUND: The Italian Interdisciplinary Urinalysis Group (GIAU) is a study group aimed to harmonize the standard chemical and morphological urine examination in Italy. The aim of this paper is to present the results of a survey recently released. The survey has been prepared to evaluate the state of the art of the routine standard urine examination in Italy after the issuing by GIAU of the recommendations related to the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical phases of the Urine Chemical Morphological Examination (ECMU).
METHODS: The questionnaire (47 questions) was made available through the web-based Survey Monkey platform to the members of the two Italian Laboratory Medicine scientific societies (SIBioC and SIPMel).
RESULTS: Overall, 553 answers were collected. Regarding the pre-analytical phase, the most critical issue is the use of a monitored (time and temperature) sample transportation to the clinical laboratory only by a small percentage of the laboratories (30%). More than 80% of the laboratories recommend the collection of the mid-stream urine. Regarding the analytical phase, the majority of the participants utilizes dedicated automated analyzers for urine sediment. Only 15.5% of the participants includes the albumin to creatinine ratio in the standard urine examination.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the survey give a picture of the current knowledge on the standard urine examination in Italy. From the comparison with the GIAU previous surveys, it can be concluded that the urinalysis practice in Italy is nowadays more compliant to the indications of the available recommendations and that a general improvement of this laboratory test is observed. Some unsatisfactory answers have been collected for a number of issues, so the role of the GIAU is and will remain fundamental to guide all the laboratory professionals who operate in this laboratory medicine field, towards further advancements.

KEY WORDS: Chemical morphological urine examination; Guidelines; Recommendations

top of page