ArticleAdvances in laboratory medicine2025
Evaluation of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio analysis using strip test as a screening method for urinary albumin determination in primary care.
Article in Advances in laboratory medicine, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The determination of urinary albumin, crucial for chronic kidney disease (CKD) diagnosis and monitoring, typically employs quantitative techniques as the gold standard. However, semi-quantitative methods such as urine reagent strips show promise as cost-effective and rapid screening tools. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing Meditape UC-11A strips (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) for albuminuria screening compared to quantitative assays measuring urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR). Methods: We systematically analyzed 1,627 strip samples using Meditape UC-11A strips whenever quantitative urinary albumin measurement was required. We compared the ACR measured by strip test with the gold standard (quantitative method determined by Atellica, Siemens, Marburg, Germany) and calculated diagnostic indicators. Additionally, we assessed the economic implications based on test prices (€2.88 for quantitative albumin plus creatinine, and €0.93 for a Meditape UC-11A strip). Results: Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to determine the optimal cut-off point. The concordance rate achieved using the calculated cut-off point was 90.78 %. Using the quantitative test as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ACR, analyzed using Meditape UC-11A, were 84.2 , 91.9, 62.7, and 97.3 %, respectively. Our findings suggest a potential saving of 81.2 % on quantitative tests during the study period, amounting to €2,291.65. Conclusions: This study supports the use of Meditape UC-11A strips for detecting abnormal levels of albuminuria, thus offering a viable alternative to quantitative measurement methods. Substantial cost savings can be achieved through this approach.
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.