ArticleEJIFCC2026
Evaluation of Urinary Albumin/Creatinine Ratio Strip Assay: A Reliable Screening Alternative to Replacing the Quantitative Biochemical Methods.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical laboratories play a crucial role in the diagnosis and monitoring of chronic kidney disease. Quantitative measurement of urinary albumin, expressed as the albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR), is the most commonly used biomarker for this purpose. This study evaluates the feasibility of using urinary strips as a screening tool for ACR, compared with conventional biochemical methods. Specifically, we assessed the diagnostic performance of the urinary strip and the potential economic impact of implementing this screening approach. Materials and methods: This study included 1,257 samples obtained in primary care, with systematic assessment of requests for urinary strip tests and biochemical quantification of urinary albumin and creatinine. Semiquantitative measurements were performed using Unamax autoanalyzer and quantitative determinations were conducted using AU5800 autoanalyzer. Diagnostic indicators for ACR were calculated for different albumin and creatinine levels. Economic effects were analyzed based on the costs of both testing methods. Results: Results at different cut-off values for albumin and creatinine showed optimal performance at 10 mg/L and above 100 mg/dL, respectively. 666 biochemical quantification tests (53.85% screening) for urinary albumin and creatinine could have been avoided during the study period, resulting in total savings of 522.81€. Conclusions: The present study supports the use of Unamax autoanalyzer for ACR measurement as a screening tool, avoiding unnecessary quantitative measurement, as well as allowing early identification of patients with pathological albuminuria levels. The economic impact was significant, demonstrating effective optimisation of financial resources and workflow efficiency in clinical laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41659299PMC12882088What 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.