Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How to measure urine protein in dogs with kidney disease
By Shropshire, S et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2018·Colorado State University, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of Single, Averaged, and Pooled Urine Protein:Creatinine Ratios in Proteinuric Dogs Undergoing Medical Treatment.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 25 dogs with protein-losing nephropathy (a kidney condition that causes protein loss in urine) were monitored to see how different methods of testing urine protein levels compared. The dogs were given medical treatment, and their urine was tested using single samples, averaged samples, and pooled samples over three days. The results showed that all three testing methods provided similar information about the dogs' kidney health, although there was more variability in results for dogs with higher protein levels. This means that pet owners can feel confident that their vet can use any of these methods to monitor their dog's condition effectively.
People also search for: dog kidney disease treatment · protein in urine dog symptoms · how to test dog urine protein levels
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring urine protein:creatinine ratios (UPC) in dogs with protein-losing nephropathy (PLN) is challenging because of day-to-day variation in UPC results. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Determine whether single, averaged, or pooled samples from PLN dogs receiving medical treatment yield comparable UPCs, regardless of degree of proteinuria. ANIMALS: Twenty-five client-owned PLN dogs receiving medical treatment. METHODS: UPC ratios were prospectively measured in each dog utilizing 3 methods: single in-hospital sample (day 3), average sample (days 1-3), and pooled sample (equal pooling of urine from days 1-3). Bland-Altman analysis was performed to evaluate agreement between methods for all dogs, as well as in subgroups of dogs (UPC ≤4 or UPC >4). RESULTS: For all dogs, Bland-Altman log-transformed 95% limits of agreement were -0.07-0.18 (single versus pooled UPC), -0.06-0.16 (single versus average UPC), and -0.06-0.04 (pooled versus average UPC). For dogs with UPC ≤4, Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement were -0.42-0.82 (single versus pooled UPC), -0.38-0.76 (single versus average UPC), and -0.27-0.25 (pooled versus average UPC). For dogs with UPC >4, Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement were -0.17-2.4 (single versus pooled UPC), -0.40-2.2 (single versus average UPC), and -0.85-0.43 (pooled versus average UPC). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: UPC ratios from all methods were comparable in PLN dogs receiving medical treatment. In PLN dogs with UPC >4, more variability between methods exists likely because of higher in-hospital results, but whether this finding is clinically relevant is unknown.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29171088/