ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
Diagnostic value of urinary microprotein concentration for patients with negative urinary protein test results and positive urinary casts on microscopic examination.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discrepant Urinary Findings Between Dipstick Protein and Sulfosalicylic Acid Test in a Patient With Hyaline Casts: A Case Report.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- The Diagnostic Value of Cellular Phenotyping and Pathological Casts Using Urine Flow Cytometry in Children with Lupus Nephritis.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic value of urinary microprotein concentration for patients with negative urinary protein test results and positive urinary casts on microscopic examination.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the association between positive urinary casts on microscopic examination and urinary microprotein concentration in the case of negative urinary protein test results. This study also investigated the diagnostic value of urinary microprotein examination. SUBJECTS: A total of 949 samples that were analyzed with a UF-1000i Urine Analyzer and returned cast alarm results were categorized into two groups, a positive and negative group, according to qualitative urinary protein sulfosalicylic acid test results. Then, 54 samples with negative protein test results but positive cast results according to microscopic examination were selected as the study group; 60 normal people with healthy physical examination results were selected as the control group. Both groups underwent urinary microprotein tests, including urinary microalbumin (mAlb), α1-microglobulin (A1M), transferrin (TRU), and immunoglobulin G (IgG). T tests were used to evaluate mean differences between groups and chi-square tests were used to calculate ratio differences between groups.
results(a) Microscopic examinations of the positive and negative protein groups revealed no statistically significant difference in cast detection rate (P = .421). (b) Among the 54 samples in the study group, 37 were found to have abnormal casts, while in the remaining 17 samples, only hyaline casts were detected. (c) The detection levels of mAlb, A1M, and IgG in the study group were significantly higher than the control group (P values < .05).
conclusionUrinary microprotein test should be included in the re-examination rules for routine tests for patients with negative protein results and positive casts under microscopic examination.
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.