Proteinuria quantification with the urinary protein-to-creatinine (UPC) ratio is part of the diagnostic process in feline patients suspected of chronic kidney disease (CKD). In affected cats, monitoring and substaging of the UPC according to the International Renal Interest Society (IRIS) guidelines is also necessary for appropriate patient management. No information is available about the possible effects of analytical variability on urinary proteins (UPs) and the UPC ratio in cats.
This study aimed to determine whether imprecision and method-dependent differences due to the two dye-binding methods, pyrogallol red-molybdate (PRM) and Coomassie brilliant blue (CBB), could affect IRIS substaging.
Urine samples were collected from proteinuric and nonproteinuric cats. Intra-assay and inter-assay repeatability were assessed with both the PRM and CBB methods. Urinary supernatants (n = 120) were tested using both methods. Agreement between the methods and concordance with sample classification according to IRIS guidelines were determined.
On average, the PRM method yielded a higher CV (UP 8.4 ± 5.2%; UPC 9.5 ± 4.8%) than the CBB method (UP 5.6 ± 2.6%; UPC 7.2 ± 2.6%), but similar rates of misclassification were found in samples with UPC ratios close to the IRIS cut-off. Although the two methods were correlated, the CBB method tended to yield UPs and UPC ratios that were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than that of the PRM method. The Passing-Bablok test also found constant and proportional errors between the PRM and CBB methods. Concordance in substaging samples according to IRIS was good (k coefficient = 0.62).
The two methods were precise, but the higher UPC ratios obtained with the CBB methods might affect the interpretation using the IRIS guidelines and clinical decisions.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#21,923,555
of 24,458,924 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Clinical Pathology
#478
of 815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,350
of 337,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Clinical Pathology
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,458,924 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 815 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
