[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aims& Scopes
Journal News
Articles archive::
Current Issue
All Issues
For Authors::
Call for Papers
Submission Instruction
Submission Form
For Reviewers::
Reviewers Section
Registration::
Registration Information
Registration Form
Contact us::
Contact Information
Contact us
Site Facilities::
Site map
Search contents
FAQ
Top 10 contents
Inform to friends
Webmail::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 28, Issue 2 (winter 2018) ::
MEDICAL SCIENCES 2018, 28(2): 162-169 Back to browse issues page
Evaluation of the performance of common kits for the measurement of creatinine in serum and urine: are the results of these methods suitable for clinical use?
Fereshteh Atabi1 , Reza Mohammadi 2
1- Department of Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Medical Sciences Branch, Tehran, Iran.
2- Secretary of Biochemistry Board of External Quality Assessment Program, Iranian Association of Clinical Laboratory Doctors, Tehran, Iran , r.mohammadi.bio@gmail.com
Abstract:   (6222 Views)
Background: Measuring serum and urine creatinine level is currently the most common method for assessing renal function. For this purpose, Jaffe’s method is most commonly used. The inconsistency in the results obtained from one single sample may be due to poor quality of the measurement method, inappropriate calibration, or improper use of the measurement method by the laboratory.
Materials and methods: To evaluate the performance of creatinine measurement methods, five commonly used kits in Iran, i.e. Pars Azmon, Pishtaz Teb, Audit, Man and Bionik, were evaluated for uncertainty, detection capabilities, linearity and comparison of results. The results were statistically analyzed by using the coefficient of variation, T-test and linear regression and clinically evaluated based on the allowable total error.
Results: The imprecision and detection capabilities of the kits were acceptable, but linearity results were not acceptable according to measurement range provided by the manufacturers, exept for Audit and Bionik kits. In addition, statistically in all cases and clinically in most cases, there was a significant difference between the results of each kit with the total mean results as the target level.
Conclusion: According to the results of this study, which have been performed in Iran for the first time, it is necessary to replace the Jaffe's method creatinine measurements with the enzymatic methods. In addition, the homogenization and standardization of these methods in comparison to a reference method is necessary.
Keywords: Creatinine, Jaffe's method, Method Evaluation, Chronic kidney disease.
Full-Text [PDF 732 kb]   (2227 Downloads)    
Semi-pilot: Survey/Cross Sectional/Descriptive | Subject: Cilinical Biochemistry
Received: 2017/11/1 | Accepted: 2018/03/5 | Published: 2018/06/19
References
1. Raghul M, Kannapiran M, Rao AM. Evaluation and applicability of predictive equations of the glomerular filtration rate in chronic kidney disease. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2012;23:827. [DOI:10.4103/1319-2442.98173]
2. Krishnegowda A, Padmarajaiah N, Anantharaman S, Honnur K. Spectrophotometric assay of creatinine in human serum sample. Arab J Chem 2013.
3. Diamandopoulos A, Goudas P, Arvanitis A. Comparison of estimated creatinine clearance among five formulae (Cockroft–Gault, Jelliffe, Sanaka, simplified 4-variable MDRD and DAF) and the 24hours-urine-collection creatinine clearance. Hippokratia 2010;14:98.
4. Delanaye P, Cavalier E, Pottel H. Serum Creatinine: Not So Simple! Nephron 2017;136:302-8. [DOI:10.1159/000469669]
5. Hoste L, Deiteren K, Pottel H, Callewaert N, Martens F. Routine serum creatinine measurements: how well do we perform? BMC Nephrol 2015;16:21. [DOI:10.1186/s12882-015-0012-x]
6. Killeen AA, Ashwood ER, Ventura CB, Styer P. Recent trends in performance and current state of creatinine assays. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013;137:496-502. [DOI:10.5858/arpa.2012-0134-CP]
7. Lumsden J. Laboratory test method validation. Rev Med Vet (Toulouse) 2000;151:623-30.
8. Stöckl D, Van Uytfanghe K, Van Aelst S, Thienpont LM. A statistical basis for harmonization of thyroid stimulating hormone immunoassays using a robust factor analysis model. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) 2014;52:965-72. [DOI:10.1515/cclm-2013-1038]
9. Mohammadi R, Norozi V. HbA1c Measurement: Comparison of Results of Five Commonly Used Kits in Iran. BPJ 2016;9:125-31. [DOI:10.13005/bpj/919]
10. Mohammadi R, Norozi V. HbA1c External Quality Assessment: Commutable vs Noncommutable Samples. BPJ 2016;9:163-8. [DOI:10.13005/bpj/923]
11. Greenberg N, Roberts WL, Bachmann LM, Wright EC, Dalton RN, Zakowski JJ, et al. Specificity characteristics of 7 commercial creatinine measurement procedures by enzymatic and Jaffe method principles. Clin Chem 2012;58:391-401. [DOI:10.1373/clinchem.2011.172288]
12. Delanghe JR, Cobbaert C, Galteau M-M, Harmoinen A, Jansen R, Kruse R, et al. Trueness verification of actual creatinine assays in the European market demonstrates a disappointing variability that needs substantial improvement. An international study in the framework of the EC4 creatinine standardization working group. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1319-25. [DOI:10.1515/CCLM.2008.256]
13. Küme T, Sağlam B, Ergon C, Sisman AR. Evaluation and comparison of Abbott Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine methods: Could the old method meet the new requirements? J Clin Lab Anal 2017;32.
14. Drion I, Cobbaert C, Groenier KH, Weykamp C, Bilo HJ, Wetzels JF, et al. Clinical evaluation of analytical variations in serum creatinine measurements: why laboratories should abandon Jaffe techniques. BMC Nephrol 2012;13:133. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2369-13-133]
15. Preeti P, Suresh JN. Estimation of Serum Creatinine by Routine Jaffé's Method and by Dry Chemistry in Icteric and Hemolytic Serum Samples. IJMRHS 2017;6:68-75.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Atabi F, Mohammadi R. Evaluation of the performance of common kits for the measurement of creatinine in serum and urine: are the results of these methods suitable for clinical use? . MEDICAL SCIENCES 2018; 28 (2) :162-169
URL: http://tmuj.iautmu.ac.ir/article-1-1409-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 28, Issue 2 (winter 2018) Back to browse issues page
فصلنامه علوم پزشکی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد پزشکی تهران Medical Science Journal of Islamic Azad Univesity - Tehran Medical Branch
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645