Inter-laboratory variation for urine albumin among laboratories in a Swedish external quality assessment scheme 2005–2023

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Morgan Lundgren , Peter Ridefelt , Carolina Kristoffersson , Ingegerd Samuelsson , Anders Larsson
{"title":"Inter-laboratory variation for urine albumin among laboratories in a Swedish external quality assessment scheme 2005–2023","authors":"Morgan Lundgren ,&nbsp;Peter Ridefelt ,&nbsp;Carolina Kristoffersson ,&nbsp;Ingegerd Samuelsson ,&nbsp;Anders Larsson","doi":"10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2024.110825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Increased albuminuria is associated with elevated mortality. Urine albumin (U-ALB) above 20 mg/L or albumin-to-creatinine ratio (U-ACR) of 3 g/mol are indicative of moderately increased albuminuria. Due to limited standardization among U-ALB methods, diagnosis of increased albuminuria might prove difficult.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Data from Equalis’s external quality assessment scheme for low U-ALB levels during 2005–2023 were categorized according to manufacturer and divided into central laboratory (CLAB) and point-of-care testing (POCT) methods. Manufacturer median values were compared to total group mean consensus values and manufacturer CV% was compared at different U-ALB levels.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>CLAB was generally closer to consensus values and had lower CV% than POCT at U-ALB levels around 20 mg/L. For CLAB, Roche methods were approximately equal to consensus U-ALB, Abbott 4 % above, and Siemens 5 % below. For POCT, HemoCue was 1 % below, Siemens 7 % above, and Abbott 8 % below. For U-Creatinine, all manufacturers generally had a good agreement differing on average by 1–4 % from consensus.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Although U-ALB methods generally meet The National Kidney Disease Education Program (NKDEP) recommendations of method bias less than 13 % and imprecision less than 30 %, differences among manufacturers have increased over the last years, with 2023 showing the largest differences between methods. This highlights the need for guidelines for albuminuria and ACR to take method differences into consideration, but also for implementation of suitable urine reference materials.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10172,"journal":{"name":"Clinical biochemistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000991202400119X/pdfft?md5=523094770a49676ea70bed58e26d418c&pid=1-s2.0-S000991202400119X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000991202400119X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Increased albuminuria is associated with elevated mortality. Urine albumin (U-ALB) above 20 mg/L or albumin-to-creatinine ratio (U-ACR) of 3 g/mol are indicative of moderately increased albuminuria. Due to limited standardization among U-ALB methods, diagnosis of increased albuminuria might prove difficult.

Materials and methods

Data from Equalis’s external quality assessment scheme for low U-ALB levels during 2005–2023 were categorized according to manufacturer and divided into central laboratory (CLAB) and point-of-care testing (POCT) methods. Manufacturer median values were compared to total group mean consensus values and manufacturer CV% was compared at different U-ALB levels.

Results

CLAB was generally closer to consensus values and had lower CV% than POCT at U-ALB levels around 20 mg/L. For CLAB, Roche methods were approximately equal to consensus U-ALB, Abbott 4 % above, and Siemens 5 % below. For POCT, HemoCue was 1 % below, Siemens 7 % above, and Abbott 8 % below. For U-Creatinine, all manufacturers generally had a good agreement differing on average by 1–4 % from consensus.

Conclusions

Although U-ALB methods generally meet The National Kidney Disease Education Program (NKDEP) recommendations of method bias less than 13 % and imprecision less than 30 %, differences among manufacturers have increased over the last years, with 2023 showing the largest differences between methods. This highlights the need for guidelines for albuminuria and ACR to take method differences into consideration, but also for implementation of suitable urine reference materials.

2005-2023 年瑞典外部质量评估计划中实验室间尿白蛋白的差异
导言白蛋白尿增加与死亡率升高有关。尿白蛋白(U-ALB)超过 20 毫克/升或白蛋白与肌酐比值(U-ACR)达到 3 克/摩尔表明白蛋白尿中度增加。由于 U-ALB 方法的标准化程度有限,白蛋白尿增加的诊断可能会很困难。材料和方法 2005-2023 年期间 Equalis 外部质量评估计划中的低 U-ALB 水平数据根据制造商进行了分类,并分为中心实验室 (CLAB) 和护理点检测 (POCT) 方法。结果在 U-ALB 水平为 20 mg/L 左右时,CLAB 一般比 POCT 更接近共识值,CV% 也更低。就 CLAB 而言,罗氏方法与共识 U-ALB 大致相当,雅培高出 4%,西门子低 5%。对于 POCT,HemoCue 低 1%,西门子高 7%,雅培低 8%。结论虽然 U-ALB 方法总体上符合美国国家肾脏病教育计划(NKDEP)的建议,即方法偏差小于 13%,不精确度小于 30%,但制造商之间的差异在过去几年中有所增加,2023 年的方法差异最大。这凸显了白蛋白尿和 ACR 指南需要考虑方法差异,同时也需要采用合适的尿液参考材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical biochemistry
Clinical biochemistry 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
25 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Biochemistry publishes articles relating to clinical chemistry, molecular biology and genetics, therapeutic drug monitoring and toxicology, laboratory immunology and laboratory medicine in general, with the focus on analytical and clinical investigation of laboratory tests in humans used for diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and therapy, and monitoring of disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信