ArticleEJIFCC2026
Case-Based Analysis of Pre-analytical and Analytical Non-Conformities in Urinary Protein Testing.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41659290PMC12882075What 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.