ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Evaluation of a urine dipstick protein to urine specific gravity ratio for the detection of proteinuria in dogs and cats.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of urinary kidney injury molecule-1 in cats with chronic kidney disease.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a urine dipstick protein to urine specific gravity ratio for the detection of proteinuria in dogs and cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
- Association of proteinuria at time of diagnosis with survival times in dogs with lymphoma.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
- Erratum for "Evaluation of a urine dipstick protein to urine specific gravity ratio for the detection of proteinuria in dogs and cats".Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utility of urine dipsticks for the quantification of proteinuria is limited because of the influence of urine specific gravity (USG). To circumvent the need for urine protein creatinine ratios (UPCR) some have proposed a calculated dipstick urine protein to USG ratio (DUR) for the detection of proteinuria. However, the performance of DUR has not been evaluated in veterinary patients.
objectivesEvaluate the correlation between DUR and UPCR, while also assessing the effect of urine characteristics on this relationship and evaluating the performance of DUR in detecting proteinuria. ANIMALS: Urine samples from 308 dogs and 70 cats.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of urinalyses and UPCRs from dogs and cats collected between 2016 and 2021.
resultsBoth canine and feline urine samples showed a positive moderate correlation between the UPCR and DUR. The correlation was not influenced by the presence of active urine sediment, glucosuria, or urine pH. In detecting canine urine samples with a UPCR >0.5, an optimal DUR of 1.4 had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 89%, 83%, 96%, and 63%, respectively. In detecting feline urine samples with a UPCR >0.4, an optimal DUR of 2.1 had sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 70%, 100%, 100%, and 75%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Use of the DUR can be a relatively reliable method for identification of proteinuria. However, given its poor NPV, the DUR cannot be recommended for exclusion of proteinuric patients.
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.