ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Sex differences in the evaluation of proteinuria using the urine dipstick test.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The urine protein dipstick test is widely used, but false-positive and false-negative results may occur. This study aimed to compare the urine protein dipstick test with a urine protein quantification method. Methods: The data were extracted using the Abbott Diagnostic Support System, which analyzes the inspection results using multiple parameters. This study included 41,058 specimens tested using the urine dipstick test and protein creatinine ratio from patients aged ≥18 years. The proteinuria creatinine ratio was classified according to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines. Results: Urine protein on the dipstick test was negative in 15,548 samples (37.9%), trace in 6,422 samples (15.6%), and ≥1+ in 19,088 samples (46.5%). Among the trace proteinuria samples, A1 (<0.15 g/gCr), A2 (0.15-0.49 g/gCr), and A3 (≥0.5 g/gCr) category proteinuria accounted for 31.2, 44.8, and 24.0% of samples, respectively. All trace proteinuria specimens with a specific gravity of <1.010 were classified as A2 and A3 category proteinuria. In the trace proteinuria cases, women had a lower specific gravity and a higher percentage of A2 or A3 category proteinuria than men. The sensitivity in the "dipstick proteinuria" ≥ trace" group was higher than that in the "dipstick proteinuria ≥ 1+" group within the lower specific gravity group. The sensitivity in the "dipstick proteinuria ≥ 1+" group was higher for men than for women, and the sensitivity in the "dipstick proteinuria ≥ trace" group was higher than that in the "dipstick proteinuria ≥ 1+" group for women. Conclusion: Pathological proteinuria assessment requires caution; this study suggests that evaluating the specific gravity of urine specimens with trace proteinuria is essential. Particularly for women, the sensitivity of the urine dipstick test is low, and caution is needed even with trace specimens.
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.