Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2021.22.e14

Comparison of three types of analyzers for urine protein-to-creatinine ratios in dogs  

Ji, Sumin (Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University)
Yang, Yeseul (Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University)
Jeong, Yeji (Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University)
Hwang, Sung-Hyun (Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University)
Kim, Myung-Chul (Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University)
Kim, Yongbaek (Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Veterinary Science / v.22, no.1, 2021 , pp. 14.1-14.11 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: Quantitation of urine protein is important in dogs with chronic kidney disease. Various analyzers are used to measure urine protein-to-creatinine ratios (UPCR). Objectives: This study aimed to compare the UPCR obtained by three types of analyzers (automated wet chemistry analyzer, in-house dry chemistry analyzer, and dipstick reading device) and investigate whether the differences could affect clinical decision process. Methods: Urine samples were collected from 115 dogs. UPCR values were obtained using three analyzers. Bland-Altman and Passing Bablok tests were used to analyze agreement between the UPCR values. Urine samples were classified as normal or proteinuria based on the UPCR values obtained by each analyzer and concordance in the classification evaluated with Cohen's kappa coefficient. Results: Passing and Bablok regression showed that there were proportional as well as constant difference between UPCR values obtained by a dipstick reading device and those obtained by the other analyzers. The concordance in the classification of proteinuria was very high (κ = 0.82) between the automated wet chemistry analyzer and in-house dry chemistry analyzer, while the dipstick reading device showed moderate concordance with the automated wet chemistry analyzer (κ = 0.52) and in-house dry chemistry analyzer (κ = 0.53). Conclusions: Although the urine dipstick test is simple and a widely used point-of-care test, our results indicate that UPCR values obtained by the dipstick test are not appropriate for clinical use. Inter-instrumental variability may affect clinical decision process based on UPCR values and should be emphasized in veterinary practice.
Keywords
Dog; creatinine; point-of-care testing; proteinuria; urinalysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.   DOI
2 Lynch PLM, Savory J, Haverstick DM. Urine total protein measurement with the vitros dry reagent technology: modification of diluent to resolve positive bias of diluted samples. Clin Chem. 1998;44(3):674-675.   DOI
3 Wang JM, Lin CY, Tsai FA, Chen JY, Koa U. Test dipstick for determination of urinary protein, creatinine and protein/creatinine ratio. J Biomed Lab Sci. 2009;21(1):23.
4 Avasare RS, Radhakrishnan J. Proteinuria as a surrogate marker for renal outcome: are we there yet? Kidney Int. 2015;88(6):1228-1230.   DOI
5 White JV, Olivier NB, Reimann K, Johnson C. Use of protein-to-creatinine ratio in a single urine specimen for quantitative estimation of canine proteinuria. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1984;185(8):882-885.
6 Mamone C, Mitchell M, Beaufrere H, Acierno M. Assessment of a veterinary dipstick for determination of urine protein/creatinine ratio in canines. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2014;50(5):e11-e14.   DOI
7 Rossi G, Bertazzolo W, Binnella M, Scarpa P, Paltrinieri S. Measurement of proteinuria in dogs: analytic and diagnostic differences using 2 laboratory methods. Vet Clin Pathol. 2016;45(3):450-458.   DOI
8 Dilena BA, Penberthy LA, Fraser CG. Six methods for determining urinary protein compared. Clin Chem. 1983;29(3):553-557.   DOI
9 Free AH, Rupe CO, Mefzler I. Studies with a new colorimetric test for proteinuria. Clin Chem. 1957;3(6):716-727.   DOI
10 Welles EG, Whatley EM, Hall AS, Wright JC. Comparison of Multistix PRO dipsticks with other biochemical assays for determining urine protein (UP), urine creatinine (UC) and UP:UC ratio in dogs and cats. Vet Clin Pathol. 2006;35(1):31-36.   DOI
11 Bilic-Zulle L. Comparison of methods: Passing and Bablok regression. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2011;21(1):49-52.   DOI
12 Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician. 1983;32(3):307-317.   DOI
13 Jacob F, Polzin DJ, Osborne CA, Neaton JD, Kirk CA, Allen TA, et al. Evaluation of the association between initial proteinuria and morbidity rate or death in dogs with naturally occurring chronic renal failure. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005;226(3):393-400.   DOI
14 Bauer N, Rettig S, Moritz A. Evaluation the Clinitek status™ automated dipstick analysis device for semiquantitative testing of canine urine. Res Vet Sci. 2008;85(3):467-472.   DOI
15 Trumel C, Diquelou A, Lefebvre H, Braun JP. Inaccuracy of routine creatinine measurement in canine urine. Vet Clin Pathol. 2004;33(3):128-132.   DOI
16 Raskin RE, Meyer D. Canine and Feline Cytology. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2009, 260-273.
17 Rossi G, Giori L, Campagnola S, Zatelli A, Zini E, Paltrinieri S. Evaluation of factors that affect analytic variability of urine protein-to-creatinine ratio determination in dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2012;73(6):779-788.   DOI
18 Chesher D. Evaluating assay precision. Clin Biochem Rev. 2008;29(Suppl 1):S23-S26.
19 Lees GE, Brown SA, Elliott J, Grauer GF, Vaden SL. Assessment and management of proteinuria in dogs and cats: 2004 ACVIM Forum Consensus Statement (small animal). J Vet Intern Med 2005;19(3):377-385.   DOI
20 Moore FM, Brum SL, Brown L. Urine protein determination in dogs and cats: comparison of dipstick and sulfasalicylic acid procedures. Vet Clin Pathol. 1991;20(4):95-97.   DOI
21 Penders J, Fiers T, Delanghe JR. Quantitative evaluation of urinalysis test strips. Clin Chem. 2002;48(12):2236-2241.   DOI
22 Delanghe JR, Himpe J, De Cock N, Delanghe S, De Herde K, Stove V, et al. Sensitive albuminuria analysis using dye-binding based test strips. Clin Chim Acta. 2017;471:107-112.   DOI
23 Theron ML, Piane L, Lucarelli L, Henrion R, Layssol-Lamour C, Palanche F, et al. Effects of storage conditions on results for quantitative and qualitative evaluation of proteins in canine urine. Am J Vet Res. 2017;78(8):990-999.   DOI