Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea.
BK 21 PLUS Program for Creative Veterinary Science Research, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Korea.
J Vet Sci. 2021 Jan;22(1):e14. doi: 10.4142/jvs.2021.22.e14.
Quantitation of urine protein is important in dogs with chronic kidney disease. Various analyzers are used to measure urine protein-to-creatinine ratios (UPCR).
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.
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.
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).
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.
在患有慢性肾病的犬只中,定量检测尿液蛋白非常重要。各种分析仪被用于测量尿液蛋白与肌酐比值(UPCR)。
本研究旨在比较三种分析仪(自动化湿化学分析仪、内部干化学分析仪和尿试纸读取设备)获得的 UPCR,并探讨差异是否会影响临床决策过程。
收集了 115 只犬的尿液样本。使用三种分析仪获得 UPCR 值。使用 Bland-Altman 和 Passing-Bablok 检验分析 UPCR 值之间的一致性。根据每个分析仪获得的 UPCR 值将尿液样本分类为正常或蛋白尿,并使用 Cohen's kappa 系数评估分类的一致性。
Passing 和 Bablok 回归显示,尿试纸读取设备与其他分析仪获得的 UPCR 值之间存在比例和常数差异。自动化湿化学分析仪和内部干化学分析仪在蛋白尿分类上的一致性非常高(κ=0.82),而尿试纸读取设备与自动化湿化学分析仪(κ=0.52)和内部干化学分析仪(κ=0.53)的一致性为中度。
尽管尿试纸检测简单且是广泛应用的床边检测,但我们的结果表明,尿试纸检测获得的 UPCR 值不适用于临床应用。仪器间的变异性可能会影响基于 UPCR 值的临床决策过程,在兽医实践中应加以强调。