Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37189791›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2023

Urine Dipstick Analysis on Automated Platforms: Is a Reliable Screening Tool for Proteinuria? An Experience from Umberto I Hospital in Rome.

Sergio Terracina, Antonio Pallaria, Marco Lucarelli, Antonio Angeloni, Annarita De Angelis, Flavio Maria Ceci, Brunella Caronti, Silvia Francati, Giovanna Blaconà, Marco Fiore and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Proteomics and Metabolomics in Biomedicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sergio TerracinaDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0748-8825
Antonio PallariaDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Marco LucarelliDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5538-2494
Antonio AngeloniDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Annarita De AngelisDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Flavio Maria CeciDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7744-218X
Brunella CarontiDepartment of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University Hospital of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Silvia FrancatiDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Giovanna BlaconàDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Marco FioreInstitute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, IBBC-CNR, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6806-9715
Giampiero FerragutiDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6129-4071
Sapienza University of Rome · ITInstitute of Cell Biology and Neurobiology · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urinalysis is commonly used as a screening tool for kidney disease. In many cases, the dipstick urine assay includes the assessment of albumin/protein and creatinine; consequently, the value of their ratio is available on the urine section report. Identification of albuminuria/proteinuria at early stages is an important issue to prevent or at least delay the onset of chronic kidney disease (CKD), kidney failure, and the progression of cardiovascular damage linked to the kidney's loss of function. Sensitive and specific diagnostic methods are required for the assessment of such an important biomarker: urine albumin, creatinine, and their ratio (ACR) measured with quantitative assays are considered the gold standard. Routine dipstick methods (more rapid and at a lower cost) are intended for wide population screening. The aim of our study was to verify the reliability of an automated urinalysis dipstick method by comparing the results with the quantitative test of creatinine and albumin performed on a clinical chemistry platform. The first-morning voids of 249 patients who arrived from different departments were analyzed in the Central Laboratory of the University Hospital Policlinico Umberto I in Rome. We found a good correlation between the two assays, even though we observed that the dipstick assessment tends to overestimate the ACR's value, disclosing a higher number of false positives if compared to the reference method. As an important novelty in this study, we analyzed our data considering age (starting from pediatric to geriatric patients) and sex as variables for a sub-stratification of the participants. Our results show that positive values need to be confirmed with quantitative methods, especially in women and younger people, and that from samples that resulted as diluted at the dipstick assay, the ACR's values can be obtained if they are reanalyzed with quantitative assays. Moreover, patients with microalbuminuria (ACR 30-300 mg/g) or severe albumin urinary excretion (ACR > 300 mg/g) should be reanalyzed using quantitative methods to obtain a more reliable calculation of the ACR.

Indexed as

albumincomparison between methodscreatininekidneyurine analysis

Identifiers

PMID37189791
PMCPMC10135658
OpenAlexW4365514566

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.