ArticlePloS one2015
A Risk Assessment of the Jaffe vs Enzymatic Method for Creatinine Measurement in an Outpatient Population.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- A phase II, open-labeled, single-arm study of dose-dense paclitaxel plus carboplatin in advanced or recurrent uterine endometrial cancer treatment: a KCOG-G1303, DOENCA trial.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2021Trial
- Evaluating renal function and age as predictors of amikacin clearance in neonates: model-based analysis and optimal dosing strategies.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Trial
- Comparison of the European Renal Function Consortium Equation With Chronic Kidney Disease - Epidemiology Collaboration 2021 for Estimating Glomerular Filtration Rate Among Algerian Population With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies · 2026Observational
- Impact of creatinine measurement methods on eGFR and GFR category assignment.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026Article
- Changing from the CKD-EPI to the EKFC creatinine equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate in adults in a Northern European health system.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2026Article
- From population science to the clinic? Limits of epigenetic clocks as personal biomarkers.Epigenomics · 2025Article
- A portable smartphone-based electrochemical sensing platform for rapid and sensitive detection of creatinine in blood serum.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Improved solution-based SERS detection of creatinine by inducing hydrogen-bonding interaction for effective analyte capture.Talanta · 2024Article
- Article
- Interference of metamizole in the measurement of serum creatinine concentration.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Selective Partitioned Regression for Accurate Kidney Health Monitoring.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Performance of Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration Equations VersusOman medical journal · 2024Article
- Performance and usability of cardiometabolic point of care devices in Nepal: A prospective, quantitative, accuracy study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Application and comparison of point-of-care devices for field evaluation of underlying health status of Guatemalan sugarcane workers.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Establishing age and gender-specific serum creatinine reference ranges for Thai pediatric population.PloS one · 2024Article
- Mangiferin alleviates renal inflammatory injury in spontaneously hypertensive rats by inhibiting MCP-1/CCR2 signaling pathway.Chinese herbal medicines · 2023Article
- Pseudohypercreatininemia after surgery for aortic dissection: a case report.BMC nephrology · 2023Article
- Comparison of Jaffe Method and Enzymatic Method at Measuring Serum Creatinine Level, Creatinine Clearance and Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate.Materia socio-medica · 2023Article
- Trending of a falsely elevated serum creatinine after a pediatric nitromethane ingestion: A case report.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
- Health Risk Assessment of Exposure to 15 Essential and Toxic Elements in Spanish Women of Reproductive Age: A Case Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Jaffe and enzymatic methods are the two most common methods for measuring serum creatinine. The Jaffe method is less expensive than the enzymatic method but is also more susceptible to interferences. Interferences can lead to misdiagnosis but interferences may vary by patient population. The overall risk associated with the Jaffe method depends on the probability of misclassification and the consequences of misclassification. This study assessed the risk associated with the Jaffe method in an outpatient population. We analyzed the discordance rate in the estimated glomerular filtration rate based on serum creatinine measurements obtained by the Jaffe and enzymatic method.
methodsMethod comparison and risk analysis. Five hundred twenty-nine eGFRs obtained by the Jaffe and enzymatic method were compared at four clinical decision limits. We determined the probability of discordance and the consequence of misclassification at each decision limit to evaluate the overall risk.
resultsWe obtained 529 paired observations. Of these, 29 (5.5%) were discordant with respect to one of the decision limits (i.e. 15, 30, 45 or 60 ml/min/1.73m2). The magnitude of the differences (Jaffe result minus enzymatic result) were significant relative to analytical variation in 21 of the 29 (72%) of the discordant results. The magnitude of the differences were not significant relative to biological variation. The risk associated with misclassification was greatest at the 60 ml/min/1.73m2 decision limit because the probability of misclassification and the potential for adverse outcomes were greatest at that decision limit.
conclusionThe Jaffe method is subject to bias due to interfering substances (loss of analytical specificity). The risk of misclassification is greatest at the 60 ml/min/1.73m2 decision limit; however, the risk of misclassification due to bias is much less than the risk of misclassification due to biological variation. The Jaffe method may pose low risk in selected populations if eGFR results near the 60 ml/min/1.73m2 decision limit are interpreted with caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.