ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2023
Evaluation of a smartphone-based colorimetric method for urinalysis dipstick readings in cats.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performances of a smartphone-based colorimetric method (SBCM) for urinalysis with a semi-automated point-of-care (POC) analyser using standardised solutions and cat urine.
methodsArtificial solutions (negative and positive quality controls, and purposely designed artificial urine) and natural urine from 216 cats were used. Two urine reagent strips were simultaneously dipped in each sample. One dipstick was read by the SBCM and the other by the POC analyser at the same time. Results for pH, proteins, bilirubin, 'blood', glucose and ketones were considered. Overall agreement and sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the SBCM were determined based on selected cut-offs.
resultsFor the artificial solutions, 80 comparisons were obtained for each analyte and each expected concentration. The overall agreement (exactly the same result) between the two methods was 78.4%. SBCM sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 99.0%, 100% and 99.3%, respectively. The correlation between the two methods was almost perfect (Cohen's kappa coefficient = 0.9851). For natural urine samples, the overall agreement (including pH) was 68.6%. Using optimal cut-offs for the SBCM determined from the results of analysis of artificial solutions, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the SBCM were 100%, 76.02% and 80.5%, respectively. In this situation, the correlation between the two methods was moderate (Cohen's kappa coefficient = 0.5401). This was mostly due to a high rate of false-positive results for bilirubin (61.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: With proper cut-off use (ie, considering positive or negative results) the SBCM evaluated here has a perfect sensitivity and appropriate diagnostic performances for proteins, 'blood', glucose and ketones. Based on these experimental data, this method appears suitable for dipstick urinalysis but positive results for bilirubin and proteins have to be confirmed.
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.