Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30799977›Full record

ArticleBiochemia medica2019

Analytical verification of 12 most commonly used urine dipsticks in Croatia: comparability, repeatability and accuracy.

Dora Vuljanić, Ana Dojder, Valentina Špoljarić, Andrea Saračević, Lora Dukić, Jasna Leniček-Krleža, Jelena Vlašić-Tanasković, Ivana Maradin, Ana Grzunov, Željka Vogrinc and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biochemia medica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Microfluidic Paper-based Device for Medicinal Diagnosis.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Current and emerging trends in point-of-care urinalysis tests.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Dora VuljanićDepartment of Medical Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia.
Ana DojderDepartment of Medical Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia.
Valentina ŠpoljarićDepartment of Medical Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia.
Andrea SaračevićDepartment of Medical Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia.
Lora DukićDepartment of Medical Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia.
Jasna Leniček-KrležaDepartment of Laboratory Diagnostics, Children's Hospital Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Jelena Vlašić-TanaskovićDepartment of Laboratory Diagnostics, General Hospital Pula, Pula, Croatia.
Ivana MaradinMedical - biochemistry Laboratory: "Mirjana Plavetić and Ivana Maradin", Karlovac, Croatia.
Ana GrzunovDepartment of Laboratory Diagnostics, Children's Hospital Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Željka VogrincDepartment of Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Ana-Maria ŠimundićDepartment of Medical Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionVariability among manufacturers of urine dipsticks, respective to their accuracy and measurement range, may lead to diagnostic errors and thus create a serious risk for the patient. Our aims were to determine the level of agreement between 12 most commonly used urine dipsticks in Croatia, examine their accuracy for glucose and total protein and to test their repeatability. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 75 urine samples were used to examine comparability and accuracy of 12 dipstick brands (Combur 10 TestM, ChoiceLine 10, Combur 10 TestUX, ComboStik 10M, ComboStik 11M, CombiScreen 11SYS, CombiScreen 10SL, Combina 13, Combina 11S, Combina 10M, UriGnost 11, Multistix 10SG). Agreement between each dipstick and the reference (Combur 10 TestM) was expressed as kappa coefficient (acceptable κ ≥ 0.80). Accuracy for glucose and total protein was tested by comparison with quantitative measurements on analysers: AU400 (Beckman Coulter, USA), Cobas 6000 c501 (Roche Diagnostics, Germany) and Architect plus c4000 (Abbott, USA). Repeatability was assessed on 20 replicates (acceptable > 90%).

resultsBest agreement was achieved for glucose, total protein and nitrite (11/11, k > 0.80) and the lowest for bilirubin (5/5, k < 0.60). Sensitivities for total protein were 41-75% (AU400) and 56-92% (Cobas and Architect); while specificities were 41-75% (AU400, Cobas, Architect). Dipsticks' sensitivity and specificity for glucose were 68-98%. Most of the dipsticks showed unacceptable repeatability (6/12, < 90%) for one parameter, most prominently for pH (3/12, < 90%).

conclusionsMost commonly used dipsticks in Croatia showed low level of agreement between each other. Moreover, their repeatability varies among manufacturers and their accuracy for glucose and proteins is poor.

Indexed as

BilirubinCroatiaGlucoseHumansNitritesProteinsUrinalysisBilirubinGlucoseNitritesProteinsaccuracycomparabilityrepeatabilityurine dipsticksverification

Identifiers

PMID30799977
PMCPMC6366948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.