Cited by 93Chronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesAcute Kidney Injury ResearchDiabetes Management and Research

Evaluation of tests for microalbuminuria screening in patients with diabetes

Incerti, Juliane, Zelmanovitz, Themis, Camargo, Joiza Lins, Gross, Jorge Luiz, de Azevedo, Mirela Jobim·2005·Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The first step in the diagnosis of diabetic nephropathy is to measure albumin in a spot urine sample. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of urinary albumin concentration (UAC), urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), and the Micral-Test II in a random urine specimen (RUS) for microalbuminuria screening in diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-eight patients collected 24 h timed urine specimens followed by RUS. Albumin (immunoturbidimetry) and creatinine were measured in protein-negative (Combur-Test) urine samples. Samples were classified as normoalbuminuric [24 h urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER) <20 microg/min; n = 189] and microalbuminuric (UAER =20-199 microg/min; n = 89). Micral-Test II readings were performed in 130 RUS. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed using UAER as the reference standard. RESULTS: The areas under the ROC curves were similar for UAC (0.934+/-0.032) and UACR (0.920+/-0.035; P = 0.626), but the Micral-Test II had lower accuracy to diagnose microalbuminuria (area = 0.846+/-0.047) than UAC (P = 0.014). The first cutoff point with 100% sensitivity for UAC was 14.4 mg/l (specificity =77.2%), and 15.7 mg/g for UACR (specificity =73.0%). Concerning the Micral-Test II, sensitivity and specificity for the 20 mg/l cutoff point were 90.0 and 46.0%, respectively. The agreement between UAER and the Micral-Test II for microalbuminuria diagnosis was 55.8% (kappa = 0.22; P < 0.001). The cost of diagnosing microalbuminuria was 1.74 dollars(UAC), 2.00 dollars (UACR) and 4.09 dollars (Micral-Test II) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of UAC in a RUS was the best choice for the diagnosis screening of microalbuminuria in diabetic patients, considering cost and accuracy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ndt/gfi074

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is cost-effective to screen all people with diabetes and/or kidney disease for albuminuria.

    “Published studies have also demonstrated that it is costeffective to screen all people with diabetes and/or kidney disease for albuminuria (461,462).”

    From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [462]

    The Cost of microalbuminuria diagnosis section compares per-patient costs of three screening tests in patients with diabetes, and the Discussion identifies the lowest-cost test. It does not establish that screening all people with diabetes is cost-effective, or assess screening people with kidney disease generally. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Others have validated the reliability of a first morning void sample.

    “Others have validated the reliability of a first morning void sample (462,492, 493).”

    From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [462]

    The Discussion reports that albumin measurements from first-morning urine correlate more closely with 24-hour protein excretion than measurements from random spot samples. However, the study itself tested random spot samples, not first-morning voids, so it reports evidence for their reliability rather than independently validating them. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most studies have found that the spot urine albumin-creatinine concentration in the first morning void is the most practical and reliable technique compared to 24-h urinary excretion or timed collection.

    “Most studies have found that the spot urine albumin-creatinine concentration in the first morning void, rather than the 24-h urinary excretion of albumin or the timed collection, is the most practical and reliable technique (346,350,351).”
  • Published studies have demonstrated that it is cost-effective to screen all patients with diabetes and/or kidney disease for albuminuria.

    “Published studies have demonstrated that it is cost-effective to screen all patients with diabetes and/or kidney disease for albuminuria (346,347).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [13]13. Scheffel RS, Bortolanza D, Weber CS et al. Prevalence of micro and macroangiopathic chronic complications and their risk factors in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2004; 50: 263-267

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Incerti, J., Zelmanovitz, T., Camargo, J. L., Gross, J. L., & de Azevedo, M. J.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
Corresponding author
Incerti, Juliane
Venue
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
Published
2005-08-16
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
2402-2407
ISSN
  • 0931-0509 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2385
OpenAlex
W2118525653
Cited by
93
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
microalbuminuria, diabetic nephropathy, diabetes mellitus, albumin-creatinine ratio, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, test agreement
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Albuminuria, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Creatinine, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Nephelometry and Turbidimetry, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Urinalysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review