Evaluation of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio analysis using strip test as a screening method for urinary albumin determination in primary care.

IF 1.1 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Advances in laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-01 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1515/almed-2024-0068
Paula Liébanas García, Silvia Montolio Breva, Teresa Sans Mateu
{"title":"Evaluation of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio analysis using strip test as a screening method for urinary albumin determination in primary care.","authors":"Paula Liébanas García, Silvia Montolio Breva, Teresa Sans Mateu","doi":"10.1515/almed-2024-0068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The determination of urinary albumin, crucial for chronic kidney disease (CKD) diagnosis and monitoring, typically employs quantitative techniques as the gold standard. However, semi-quantitative methods such as urine reagent strips show promise as cost-effective and rapid screening tools. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing Meditape UC-11A strips (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) for albuminuria screening compared to quantitative assays measuring urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically analyzed 1,627 strip samples using Meditape UC-11A strips whenever quantitative urinary albumin measurement was required. We compared the ACR measured by strip test with the gold standard (quantitative method determined by Atellica, Siemens, Marburg, Germany) and calculated diagnostic indicators. Additionally, we assessed the economic implications based on test prices (€2.88 for quantitative albumin plus creatinine, and €0.93 for a Meditape UC-11A strip).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to determine the optimal cut-off point. The concordance rate achieved using the calculated cut-off point was 90.78 %. Using the quantitative test as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ACR, analyzed using Meditape UC-11A, were 84.2 , 91.9, 62.7, and 97.3 %, respectively. Our findings suggest a potential saving of 81.2 % on quantitative tests during the study period, amounting to €2,291.65.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study supports the use of Meditape UC-11A strips for detecting abnormal levels of albuminuria, thus offering a viable alternative to quantitative measurement methods. Substantial cost savings can be achieved through this approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":72097,"journal":{"name":"Advances in laboratory medicine","volume":"6 3","pages":"345-350"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12446912/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/almed-2024-0068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The determination of urinary albumin, crucial for chronic kidney disease (CKD) diagnosis and monitoring, typically employs quantitative techniques as the gold standard. However, semi-quantitative methods such as urine reagent strips show promise as cost-effective and rapid screening tools. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing Meditape UC-11A strips (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) for albuminuria screening compared to quantitative assays measuring urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR).

Methods: We systematically analyzed 1,627 strip samples using Meditape UC-11A strips whenever quantitative urinary albumin measurement was required. We compared the ACR measured by strip test with the gold standard (quantitative method determined by Atellica, Siemens, Marburg, Germany) and calculated diagnostic indicators. Additionally, we assessed the economic implications based on test prices (€2.88 for quantitative albumin plus creatinine, and €0.93 for a Meditape UC-11A strip).

Results: Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to determine the optimal cut-off point. The concordance rate achieved using the calculated cut-off point was 90.78 %. Using the quantitative test as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ACR, analyzed using Meditape UC-11A, were 84.2 , 91.9, 62.7, and 97.3 %, respectively. Our findings suggest a potential saving of 81.2 % on quantitative tests during the study period, amounting to €2,291.65.

Conclusions: This study supports the use of Meditape UC-11A strips for detecting abnormal levels of albuminuria, thus offering a viable alternative to quantitative measurement methods. Substantial cost savings can be achieved through this approach.

Abstract Image

尿白蛋白与肌酐比值分析在初级保健中作为尿白蛋白测定筛查方法的评价。
目的:尿白蛋白的测定对慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)的诊断和监测至关重要,通常采用定量技术作为金标准。然而,半定量方法,如尿液试剂条显示出具有成本效益和快速筛选工具的前景。本研究旨在评估Meditape UC-11A试纸(Sysmex, Kobe, Japan)用于蛋白尿筛查的可行性,并与定量测定尿白蛋白与肌酐比值(ACR)的方法进行比较。方法:在需要进行尿白蛋白定量检测时,采用Meditape UC-11A试纸对1627份 试纸样本进行系统分析。将试纸法测定的ACR与金标准(定量方法由德国Atellica, Siemens, Marburg, Germany确定)进行比较,计算诊断指标。此外,我们根据测试价格评估了经济影响(定量白蛋白加肌酐2.88欧元,Meditape UC-11A试纸0.93欧元)。结果:采用受试者操作特征(Receiver operator characteristic, ROC)曲线分析确定最佳分界点。使用计算的截断点达到的一致性率为90.78 %。以定量检验为金标准,使用Meditape UC-11A分析ACR的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)分别为84.2 、91.9、62.7和97.3% %。我们的研究结果表明,在研究期间,定量测试可能节省81.2 %,总计2,291.65欧元。结论:本研究支持使用Meditape UC-11A试纸检测尿白蛋白异常水平,为定量检测方法提供了一种可行的替代方法。通过这种方法可以节省大量的成本。
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信