Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Comparing three urine protein tests for dogs with kidney disease
By Ji, Sumin et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary science·2021·College of Veterinary Medicine, South Korea·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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 three types of analyzers for urine protein-to-creatinine ratios in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at how well three different types of urine tests measure protein levels in dogs, which is important for diagnosing kidney disease. The tests included an automated wet chemistry analyzer, an in-house dry chemistry analyzer, and a dipstick test. While the automated and dry chemistry analyzers provided similar results, the dipstick test showed less reliable results and may not be suitable for making clinical decisions. This means that if your dog is being tested for kidney issues, the type of test used can affect the diagnosis and treatment plan.
People also search for: dog kidney disease urine test · protein in dog urine dipstick accuracy · chronic kidney disease in dogs tests
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitation of urine protein is important in dogs with chronic kidney disease. Various analyzers are used to measure urine protein-to-creatinine ratios (UPCR). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the UPCR obtained by three types of analyzers (automated wet chemistry analyzer, in-house dry chemistry analyzer, and dipstick reading device) and investigate whether the differences could affect clinical decision process. METHODS: Urine samples were collected from 115 dogs. UPCR values were obtained using three analyzers. Bland-Altman and Passing Bablok tests were used to analyze agreement between the UPCR values. Urine samples were classified as normal or proteinuria based on the UPCR values obtained by each analyzer and concordance in the classification evaluated with Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Passing and Bablok regression showed that there were proportional as well as constant difference between UPCR values obtained by a dipstick reading device and those obtained by the other analyzers. The concordance in the classification of proteinuria was very high (κ = 0.82) between the automated wet chemistry analyzer and in-house dry chemistry analyzer, while the dipstick reading device showed moderate concordance with the automated wet chemistry analyzer (κ = 0.52) and in-house dry chemistry analyzer (κ = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Although the urine dipstick test is simple and a widely used point-of-care test, our results indicate that UPCR values obtained by the dipstick test are not appropriate for clinical use. Inter-instrumental variability may affect clinical decision process based on UPCR values and should be emphasized in veterinary practice.
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/33522166/