4.5 Article

Chronic kidney disease prevalence in Rivas, Nicaragua: Use of a field device for creatinine measurement

期刊

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 456-458

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.01.005

关键词

Chronic kidney disease; Creatinine; Point of care testing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: An epidemic of chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been identified in Pacific coastal regions of Central America, and screening in the field in these low income countries remains logistically problematic. We tested the performance characteristics of a point of care creatinine analyzer compared to standardized serum creatinine measurements. Methods: Measurements were conducted in 100 persons from a local health center (n = 34) and hospital (n = 66) in Rivas, Nicaragua using both a point-of-care analyzer (StatSensor Xpress, Nova Biomedical) and serum creatinine by Jaffe kinetic method with a Roche Cobas Integra 400 analyzer. Percent coefficient of variation, sensitivity and specificity of the StatSensor Xpress were determined. Results: The average coefficient of variation (CV) was 1.28% for the serum creatinine and CV for the StatSensor Xpress analyzer was 6.8%. The median intra-individual creatinine results obtained with the StatSensor Xpress device were 0.32 mg/dL higher than those by serum creatinine by Jaffe kinetic method. The sensitivity and specificity of the StatSensor Xpress device for identifying subjects with abnormal creatinine (defined as >1.2 mg/dL) was 100% and 79%, respectively. Conclusions: Point of care testing for creatinine demonstrated acceptable repeatability, excellent sensitivity (100%) and modest specificity (79%). Using the point of care testing will allow for generalized screening in the field in low income countries; however, confirmation for elevated levels >1.2 mg/dL will require a second laboratory test confirmation. (C) 2015 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据