Suppr超能文献

常规血清肌酐测量:我们做得如何?

Routine serum creatinine measurements: how well do we perform?

作者信息

Hoste Liesbeth, Deiteren Kathleen, Pottel Hans, Callewaert Nico, Martens Frank

机构信息

Interdisciplinary Research Facility Life Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Campus Kortrijk, Kortrijk, Belgium.

Department of Clinical Chemistry and Toxicology, AZ Groeninge Hospital, Reepkaai 4, B8500, Kortrijk, Belgium.

出版信息

BMC Nephrol. 2015 Feb 14;16:21. doi: 10.1186/s12882-015-0012-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The first aim of the study was to investigate the accuracy and intra-laboratory variation of serum creatinine measurements in clinical laboratories in Flanders. The second purpose was to check the effect of this variation in serum creatinine concentration results on the calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the impact on classification of patients into a chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage.

METHODS

26 routine instruments were included, representing 13 different types of analyzers from 6 manufacturers and covering all current methodologies (Jaffe, compensated Jaffe, enzymatic liquid and dry chemistry methods). Target values of five serum pools (creatinine concentrations ranging from 35 to 934 μmol/L) were assigned by the gold standard method (ID-GC/MS).

RESULTS

Intra-run CV (%) (n = 5) and bias (%) from the target values were higher for low creatinine concentrations. Especially Jaffe and enzymatic dry chemistry methods showed a higher error. The calculated eGFR values corresponding with the reported creatinine concentration ranges resulted in a different CKD classification in 47% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most creatinine assays claim to be traceable to the gold standard (ID-GC/MS), large inter-assay differences still exist. The inaccuracy in the lower concentration range is of particular concern and may lead to clinical misinterpretation when the creatinine-based eGFR of the patient is used for CKD staging. Further research to improve harmonization between methods is required.

摘要

背景

本研究的首要目的是调查佛兰德地区临床实验室中血清肌酐测量的准确性和实验室内变异。第二个目的是检查血清肌酐浓度结果的这种变异对计算的估计肾小球滤过率(eGFR)的影响以及对患者慢性肾脏病(CKD)分期分类的影响。

方法

纳入了26台常规仪器,代表来自6家制造商的13种不同类型的分析仪,并涵盖了所有当前方法(Jaffe法、补偿Jaffe法、酶促液体和干化学法)。通过金标准方法(ID-GC/MS)确定了五个血清池(肌酐浓度范围为35至934μmol/L)的靶值。

结果

低肌酐浓度时,批内变异系数(CV)(%)(n = 5)和与靶值的偏差(%)更高。特别是Jaffe法和酶促干化学法显示出更高的误差。与报告的肌酐浓度范围相对应的计算eGFR值在47%的病例中导致了不同的CKD分类。

结论

尽管大多数肌酐检测方法声称可溯源至金标准(ID-GC/MS),但检测方法之间仍存在较大差异。低浓度范围内的不准确性尤其令人担忧,当基于肌酐的eGFR用于CKD分期时,可能会导致临床误解。需要进一步研究以改善方法之间的一致性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/dc15/4358903/deb7f3ab4eae/12882_2015_12_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验