Cited by 41Pancreatic function and diabetesDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Research

Validation of a single-sample urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio as a reproducible alternative to serum C-peptide in patients with Type 2 diabetes

Bowman, P., McDonald, T. J., Shields, B. M., Knight, B. A., Hattersley, A. T.·2012·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

Diabet. Med. 29, 90–93 (2012) Aims Serum C‐peptide can be used in Type 2 diabetes as a measure of endogenous insulin secretion, but practicalities of collection limit its routine clinical use. Urine C‐peptide creatinine ratio is a non‐invasive alternative that is stable for at least 3 days at room temperature in boric acid preservative. We aimed to assess the utility of urine C‐peptide creatinine ratio in individuals with Type 2 diabetes as an alternative to serum C‐peptide. Methods We assessed, in 77 individuals with Type 2 diabetes, the reproducibility of, and correlations between, fasting and postprandial urine C‐peptide creatinine ratio and serum C‐peptide, and the impact of renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml min−1 1.73 m−2) on these correlations. Results Urine C‐peptide creatinine ratio was at least as reproducible as serum C‐peptide [fasting coefficient of variation mean (95% CI): 28 (21–35)% vs. 38 (26–59)% and 2‐h post‐meal 26 (18–33)% vs. 27 (20–34)%. Urine C‐peptide creatinine ratio 2 h post‐meal was correlated with stimulated serum C‐peptide, both the 2‐h value (r = 0.64, P < 0.001) and the 2‐h area under the C‐peptide curve (r = 0.63, P < 0.001). The association seen was similar in patients with and without moderate renal impairment (P = 0.6). Conclusions In patients with Type 2 diabetes, a single urine C‐peptide creatinine ratio is a stable, reproducible measure that is well correlated with serum C‐peptide following meal stimulation, even if there is moderate renal impairment. Urine C‐peptide creatinine ratio therefore has potential for use in clinical practice in the assessment of Type 2 diabetes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03428.x

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowman, P., McDonald, T. J., Shields, B. M., Knight, B. A., & Hattersley, A. T.
Affiliations
University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Hattersley, A. T.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-12-07
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
90-93
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W1939888620
Cited by
40
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Royal Devon and Exeter Research Repository (Royal Devon and Exeter) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
urinary C-peptide, type 2 diabetes, endogenous insulin secretion, reproducibility, renal dysfunction, estimated glomerular filtration rate, non-invasive biomarkers, postprandial C-peptide
MeSH terms
Insulin Secretion, Adult, C-Peptide, Creatinine, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Fasting, Female, Glomerular Filtration Rate, Humans, Insulin, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Postprandial Period

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