Sex differences in the evaluation of proteinuria using the urine dipstick test

Author:

Kojima Chiari,Umemura Hiroshi,Shimosawa Tatsuo,Nakayama Tomohiro

Abstract

BackgroundThe urine protein dipstick test is widely used, but false-positive and false-negative results may occur. This study aimed to compare the urine protein dipstick test with a urine protein quantification method.MethodsThe data were extracted using the Abbott Diagnostic Support System, which analyzes the inspection results using multiple parameters. This study included 41,058 specimens tested using the urine dipstick test and protein creatinine ratio from patients aged ≥18 years. The proteinuria creatinine ratio was classified according to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines.ResultsUrine protein on the dipstick test was negative in 15,548 samples (37.9%), trace in 6,422 samples (15.6%), and ≥1+ in 19,088 samples (46.5%). Among the trace proteinuria samples, A1 (<0.15 g/gCr), A2 (0.15–0.49 g/gCr), and A3 (≥0.5 g/gCr) category proteinuria accounted for 31.2, 44.8, and 24.0% of samples, respectively. All trace proteinuria specimens with a specific gravity of <1.010 were classified as A2 and A3 category proteinuria. In the trace proteinuria cases, women had a lower specific gravity and a higher percentage of A2 or A3 category proteinuria than men. The sensitivity in the “dipstick proteinuria” ≥ trace” group was higher than that in the “dipstick proteinuria ≥ 1+” group within the lower specific gravity group. The sensitivity in the “dipstick proteinuria ≥ 1+” group was higher for men than for women, and the sensitivity in the “dipstick proteinuria ≥ trace” group was higher than that in the “dipstick proteinuria ≥ 1+” group for women.ConclusionPathological proteinuria assessment requires caution; this study suggests that evaluating the specific gravity of urine specimens with trace proteinuria is essential. Particularly for women, the sensitivity of the urine dipstick test is low, and caution is needed even with trace specimens.

Publisher

Frontiers Media SA

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3