Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41659290›Full record

ArticleEJIFCC2026

Case-Based Analysis of Pre-analytical and Analytical Non-Conformities in Urinary Protein Testing.

Sajjad Bakhtiari, Majid Sirati-Sabet, Anisha Mathew, Vivek Pant

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in EJIFCC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Sajjad BakhtiariGastroenterology and Liver Diseases Research Center, Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Majid Sirati-SabetDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Anisha MathewDepartment of Biochemistry, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical sciences indore, Madhya Pradesh.
Vivek PantDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Samyak Diagnostic Laboratory, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate quantification of urinary protein is fundamental for the diagnosis, monitoring, and management of kidney disease. Despite technological advances, both pre-analytical and analytical non-conformities in laboratory testing remain significant sources of misinterpretation that can adversely affect clinical decision-making. This report analyzes two such cases to highlight common but critical pitfalls in proteinuria assessment. We present two illustrative cases: the first involves a pediatric patient, where a pre-analytical non-conformity led to a significant overestimation of proteinuria severity. The second case describes an elderly diabetic patient where an analytical non-conformity resulted in a profound underestimation of albuminuria. In both instances, discrepancies between semi-quantitative and quantitative results were the critical clues that prompted investigation. These cases underscore that urinary protein results, while quantitative, are not infallible. Vigilant attention to pre-analytical procedures, strict adherence to analytical limits, and the integration of semi-quantitative results as a plausibility check are essential to prevent diagnostic non-conformities. Effective communication between clinicians and laboratory professionals is paramount to ensure that laboratory results accurately inform, rather than misdirect, clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Analytical InterferenceCase ReportHarmonizationPre-analytical PhaseProteinuria

Identifiers

PMID41659290
PMCPMC12882075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.