ArticleBiochemia medica2019
Analytical verification of 12 most commonly used urine dipsticks in Croatia: comparability, repeatability and accuracy.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and Reliability Between Urine Reagent Strips and Refractometry for Field Assessment of Hydration in Ultra-Trail Runners.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Changes in body mass and urinary biomarkers after a long-lasting combat search and rescue military exercise performed in a tropical region.Sports medicine and health science · 2025Article
- Development of a Quantitative Digital Urinalysis Tool for Detection of Nitrite, Protein, Creatinine, and pH.Biosensors · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Effect of Fermented Red Ginseng Concentrate Intake on Stool Characteristic, Biochemical Parameters, and Gut Microbiota in Elderly Korean Women.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Comparison of two diagnostic methods through blood and urine sample analyses for the detection of ketosis in cattle.Veterinary world · 2022Article
- Verification of Atellica 1500 and comparison with Iris urine analyser and urine culture.Biochemia medica · 2022Article
- Microfluidic Paper-based Device for Medicinal Diagnosis.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2022Article
- Internal Quality Control Data of Urine Reagent Strip Tests and Derivation of Control Rules Based on Sigma Metrics.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- Efficacy of Urine Dipstick Test in Diagnosing Urinary Tract Infection and Detection of the blaCTX-M Gene among ESBL-ProducingDiseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Different Reactions in Each Enterotype Depending on the Intake of Probiotic Yogurt Powder.Microorganisms · 2021Article
- Comparison of Two Different Semiquantitative Urinary Dipstick Tests with Albumin-to-Creatinine Ratio for Screening and Classification of Albuminuria According to KDIGO. A Diagnostic Test Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Proteinuria and Bilirubinuria as Potential Risk Indicators of Acute Kidney Injury during Running in Outpatient Settings.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
- Association between Altered Blood Parameters and Gut Microbiota after Synbiotic Intake in Healthy, Elderly Korean Women.Nutrients · 2020Article
- Current and emerging trends in point-of-care urinalysis tests.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.