Abstract: Objective　To use the traditional manual microscopy as the standard method，to compare the results of quantitative analysis of Sysmex UF-1000i urine formed element analyzer (UF-1000i analyzer) and AVE764B urinary sediment analyzer (AVE764B analyzer) and to analyze the 2 detection systems′strengths and weaknesses.   Methods　A total of 200 fresh (within 1 h) urine samples of patients from Department of Urinary Surgery and Department of Urology were analyzed，and the 2 systems were evaluated. Results　Manual microscopy and UF-1000i analyzer comparison showed that red blood cell: Y＝1.173X－3.277，r＝0.975，F＝3 771.028，P＝0.000; white blood cell: Y＝0.658X＋35.842，r＝0.973，F＝4 759.543，P＝0.000; epithelial cell: Y＝0.604X＋11.252，r＝0.973，F＝1 378.888，P＝0.000. Manual microscopy and AVE764B analyzer comparison showed that red blood cell: Y＝1.27X－41.857，r＝0.973，F＝3 585.945，P＝0.000; white blood cell: Y＝0.741X－9.402，r＝0.990，F＝10 210.826，P＝0.000; epithelial cell: Y＝0.486X－9.852，r＝0.959，F＝2 271.304，P＝0.000. Conclusions　The results of the 2 systems and manual microscopy had consistent correlation. Urinary sediment analyzer has good recognition analysis for urine formed elements，but for the actual work or some special specimens, manual microscopy identification is needed.

Key words: Formed element, Urine, Sysmex UF-1000i urine formed element analyzer, AVE764B urinary sediment analyzer, Microscopy