Mejia Jhonatan R, Fernandez-Chinguel Jose Ernesto, Dolores-Maldonado Gandy, Becerra-Chauca Naysha, Goicochea-Lugo Sergio, Herrera-Añazco Percy, Zafra-Tanaka Jessica Hanae, Taype-Rondan Alvaro
Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú, Sociedad Científica de Estudiantes de Medicina del Centro, Huancayo, Peru.
Universidad San Martin de Porres, Chiclayo, Peru.
Heliyon. 2021 Oct 23;7(11):e08253. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08253. eCollection 2021 Nov.
The accuracy of urine dipsticks to detect increased albuminuria is uncertain. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipsticks for detecting albuminuria.
A systematic review of studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipstick testing for detecting albuminuria has been conducted (using as reference standard the albuminuria in a 24-hour sample or the albumin-to-creatinine ratio) in Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The risk of bias of the included studies has been assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Whenever possible, we performed meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity. The certainty of the evidence has also been assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.
A total of 14 studies have been included in this review, having assessed all albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) as assessed standard. Each study used different dipstick types. The resulting pooled sensitivity and specificity for each cutoff point were as follows: for ACR >30 mg/g (13 studies): 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.87) and 0.88 (0.83-0.91); for ACR 30-300 mg/g (7 studies): 0.72 (0.68-0.77) and 0.82 (0.76-0.89); and for ACR >300 mg/g (7 studies): 0.84 (0.71-0.90) and 0.97 (0.95-0.99), respectively. An overall high risk of bias, an important heterogeneity in all pooled analysis, and a very low certainty of the evidence have been found.
Pooled sensitivity and specificity of urine dipsticks have been calculated for different ACR cutoff points. However, the dipstick types differed across studies, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Thus, further well-designed studies are needed to reach more confident estimates and to assess accuracy differences across dipstick types.
PROSPERO (CRD42019124637).
尿试纸检测蛋白尿增加的准确性尚不确定。我们旨在评估尿试纸检测蛋白尿的诊断准确性。
在Scopus、PubMed和谷歌学术中对评估尿试纸检测蛋白尿诊断准确性的研究进行了系统评价(以24小时样本中的蛋白尿或白蛋白与肌酐比值作为参考标准)。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2(QUADAS-2)工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。只要有可能,我们就对敏感性和特异性进行荟萃分析。还使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价方法评估了证据的确定性。
本综述共纳入14项研究,均将所有白蛋白与肌酐比值(ACR)作为评估标准。每项研究使用的尿试纸类型不同。每个截断点的合并敏感性和特异性结果如下:对于ACR>30mg/g(13项研究):0.82(95%置信区间:0.76-0.87)和0.88(0.83-0.91);对于ACR 30-300mg/g(7项研究):0.72(0.68-0.77)和0.82(0.76-0.89);对于ACR>300mg/g(7项研究):分别为0.84(0.71-0.90)和0.97(0.95-0.99)。发现总体偏倚风险高,所有汇总分析中存在重要异质性,证据确定性非常低。
已计算出不同ACR截断点的尿试纸合并敏感性和特异性。然而,各研究的尿试纸类型不同,证据确定性非常低。因此,需要进一步设计良好的研究以获得更可靠的估计,并评估不同尿试纸类型之间的准确性差异。
PROSPERO(CRD42019124637)