ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Urine dipstick test for assessing albumin-to-creatinine ratio: a pilot study and the potential impact on chronic kidney disease screening.
Article in BMC nephrology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objectives of this study were to compare the sensitivity of two urine dipstick tests commercially available for detecting proteinuria and to project the potential impact of replacing one with the other for chronic kidney disease (CKD) screening in a large Brazilian health insurance company.
methodsUrine spot tests were prospectively collected from a convenience sample of 410 adults with ≥ 1 CKD risk factor from a specialized outpatient clinic. Proteinuria was assessed by three methods: (1) total protein strip ("S10", the method currently used); (2) albumin-to-creatinine ratio strip ("S12", the index test), and (3) quantitative measurement of albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR, the standard reference test). The UACR measurements were categorized into three severity levels, in accordance with current guidelines: mild (< 30 mg/g), moderate (30-300 mg/g), and severe (> 300 mg/g). To project the potential impact of replacing S10 with S12, the one-year amount of ambulatory routine urinalysis tests was assessed.
resultsOut of 410 study participants, 200 had quantitative UACR ≥ 30 mg/g. S12 showed greater sensitivity than S10 for detecting UACR ≥ 30 mg/g (95% [95%CI: 92-98%] vs. 64% [95%CI: 57-71%], p < 0.001), UACR 30-300 mg/g (56% [95%CI: 47-65%] vs. 36% [95%CI: 27-45%], p = 0.009), and UACR > 300 mg/g (95% [95%CI: 90-100%] vs. 79% [95%CI: 70-88%], p = 0.001). Considering the 777,096 routine urinalysis performed within the private health insurance and the prevalence of the main CKD risk factors in Brazilian population, replacing S10 with S12 would reduce the number of false negatives individuals with UACR ≥ 30 mg/g, UACR 30-300 mg/g, and UACR > 300 mg/g by 12,045 (86%), 6,217 (31%), and 1,243 (76%), respectively.
conclusionThis diagnostic accuracy pilot study revealed that the albumin/creatinine urine dipstick had higher sensitivity than the total protein strip currently used by a private health insurance provider. The projection impact of replacing one with another suggests a significant reduction of undiagnosed cases. Further studies in representative screening populations are warranted to determine whether its implementation improves CKD detection in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42855677What 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.