Evaluation of the analytical variability of dipstick protein pads in canine urine

BACKGROUND The dipstick is a first-line and inexpensive test that can exclude the presence of proteinuria in dogs. However, no information is available about the analytical variability of canine urine dipstick analysis. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the analytical variability in 2 dipsticks and the inter-operator variability in dipstick interpretation. METHODS Canine urine supernatants (n = 174) were analyzed with 2 commercially available dipsticks. Two observers evaluated each result blinded to the other observer and to the results of the other dipstick. Intra- and inter-assay variability was assessed in 5 samples (corresponding to the 5 different semi-quantitative results) tested 10 consecutive times over 5 consecutive days. The agreement between observers and between dipsticks was evaluated with Cohen's k test. RESULTS Intra-assay repeatability was good (≤3/10 errors), whereas inter-assay variability was higher (from 1/5 to 4/5 discordant results). The concordance between the operators (k = 0.68 and 0.79 for the 2 dipsticks) and that of the dipsticks (k = 0.66 and 0.74 for the 2 operators) was good. However, 1 observer and 1 dipstick overestimated the results compared with the second observer or dipstick. In any case, discordant results accounted for a single unit of the semi-quantitative scale. CONCLUSIONS As for any other method, analytic variability may affect the semi-quantitation of urinary proteins when using the dipstick method. Subjective interpretation of the pad and, to a lesser extent, intrinsic staining properties of the pads could affect the results. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of this variability on clinical decisions.

[1]  S. Paltrinieri,et al.  Evaluation of factors that affect analytic variability of urine protein-to-creatinine ratio determination in dogs. , 2012, American journal of veterinary research.

[2]  B. Szladovits,et al.  ASVCP quality assurance guidelines: control of preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical factors for urinalysis, cytology, and clinical chemistry in veterinary laboratories. , 2012, Veterinary clinical pathology.

[3]  M. Lappin,et al.  Comparison of urine dipstick, sulfosalicylic acid, urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, and species-specific ELISA methods for detection of albumin in urine samples of cats and dogs. , 2010, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[4]  S. Paltrinieri,et al.  Evaluation of a urine dipstick test for confirmation or exclusion of proteinuria in dogs. , 2010, American journal of veterinary research.

[5]  A. Moritz,et al.  Evaluation the Clinitek status automated dipstick analysis device for semiquantitative testing of canine urine. , 2008, Research in veterinary science.

[6]  Scott A. Brown,et al.  Assessment and management of proteinuria in dogs and cats: 2004 ACVIM Forum Consensus Statement (small animal). , 2005, Journal of veterinary internal medicine.

[7]  J. Neaton,et al.  Evaluation of the association between initial proteinuria and morbidity rate or death in dogs with naturally occurring chronic renal failure. , 2005, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[8]  S. Stockham,et al.  Fundamentals of Veterinary Clinical Pathology , 2002 .

[9]  Paul Tighe,et al.  Urine dry reagent strip “error” rates using different reading methods , 2000 .

[10]  P. Froom,et al.  Stability of common analytes in urine refrigerated for 24 h before automated analysis by test strips. , 2000, Clinical chemistry.

[11]  A Rumley,et al.  Urine dipstick testing: comparison of results obtained by visual reading and with the Bayer CLINITEK 50 , 2000, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[12]  Walter Hofmann,et al.  European Urinalysis Guidelines , 2000, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. Supplementum.

[13]  A. Kallner,et al.  Guidelines for evaluation of reagent strips. Exemplified by analysis of urine albumin and glucose concentration using visually read reagent strips: Ifcc Document , 1989 .

[14]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[15]  Scott A. Brown,et al.  “Assessment and Management of Proteinuria in Dogs and Cats” , 2004 .

[16]  D Kutter,et al.  Quality specifications for ordinal scale measurements with multiproperty (multiple) urine test strips. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[17]  P Tighe,et al.  Laboratory-based quality assurance programme for near-patient urine dipstick testing, 1990-1997: development, management and results. , 1999, British journal of biomedical science.

[18]  C. Degenaar,et al.  The Reproducibility of Urinalysis Using Multiple Reagent Test Strips , 1991, European journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry : journal of the Forum of European Clinical Chemistry Societies.