IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0137460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic Accuracy of Urine Protein/Creatinine Ratio Is Influenced by Urine Concentration

Author

Listed:
  • Chih-Yu Yang
  • Fu-An Chen
  • Chun-Fan Chen
  • Wen-Sheng Liu
  • Chia-Jen Shih
  • Shuo-Ming Ou
  • Wu-Chang Yang
  • Chih-Ching Lin
  • An-Hang Yang

Abstract

Background: The usage of urine protein/creatinine ratio to estimate daily urine protein excretion is prevalent, but relatively little attention has been paid to the influence of urine concentration and its impact on test accuracy. We took advantage of 24-hour urine collection to examine both urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) and daily urine protein excretion, with the latter as the reference standard. Specific gravity from a concomitant urinalysis of the same urine sample was used to indicate the urine concentration. Methods: During 2010 to 2014, there were 540 adequately collected 24h urine samples with protein concentration, creatinine concentration, total volume, and a concomitant urinalysis of the same sample. Variables associated with an accurate UPCR estimation were determined by multivariate linear regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine the discriminant cut-off values of urine creatinine concentration for predicting an accurate UPCR estimation in either dilute or concentrated urine samples. Results: Our findings indicated that for dilute urine, as indicated by a low urine specific gravity, UPCR is more likely to overestimate the actual daily urine protein excretion. On the contrary, UPCR of concentrated urine is more likely to result in an underestimation. By ROC curve analysis, the best cut-off value of urine creatinine concentration for predicting overestimation by UPCR of dilute urine (specific gravity ≦ 1.005) was ≦ 38.8 mg/dL, whereas the best cut-off values of urine creatinine for predicting underestimation by UPCR of thick urine were ≧ 63.6 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.015), ≧ 62.1 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.020), ≧ 61.5 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.025), respectively. We also compared distribution patterns of urine creatinine concentration of 24h urine cohort with a concurrent spot urine cohort and found that the underestimation might be more profound in single voided samples. Conclusions: The UPCR in samples with low or high specific gravity is more likely to overestimate or underestimate actual daily urine protein amount, respectively, especially in a dilute urine sample with its creatinine below 38.8 mg/dL or a concentrated sample with its creatinine above 61.5 mg/dL. In particular, UPCR results should be interpreted with caution in cases that involve dilute urine samples because its overestimation may lead to an erroneous diagnosis of proteinuric renal disease or an incorrect staging of chronic kidney disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Chih-Yu Yang & Fu-An Chen & Chun-Fan Chen & Wen-Sheng Liu & Chia-Jen Shih & Shuo-Ming Ou & Wu-Chang Yang & Chih-Ching Lin & An-Hang Yang, 2015. "Diagnostic Accuracy of Urine Protein/Creatinine Ratio Is Influenced by Urine Concentration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-13, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0137460
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137460
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137460&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0137460?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0137460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.