4.5 Article

Differences in urinary albumin detected by four immunoassays and high-performance liquid chromatography

Journal

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 105-111

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2003.10.008

Keywords

diabetic nephropathy; microalbuminuria; immunoassays; high-performance liquid chromatography; urinary albumin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To compare the analysis of urinary albumin from diabetic patients by four conventional immunoassays including radioimmunoassay (RIA), immunonephelometry (IN), and two different methods of immunoturbidimetry (IT), as well as by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Design and methods: Urines were collected over a 24-h period and stored at -20degreesC until assay. Urinary albumin concentration was determined by an in-house RIA, by IN using a Beckman Array Analyser with reagents from Beckman Diagnostics (Sydney, Australia), by IT using a Dade-Behring Turbitimer with reagents from Dade-Behring (Marburg, Germany), by IT using a Dade-Behring Dimension R x L Chemistry Analyser with reagents from DiaSorin (Stillwater, OK, USA), and by HPLC using a Zorbax Bio series preparative GF-250 column. Regression lines were calculated using a least squares method to determine the correlation between the assays studied. Bland-Altman bias plots including limits of agreement were also calculated. Results: The correlation coefficients calculated were high (>0.85) indicating a strong linear relationship between all assays studied. The slopes calculated for the comparisons demonstrate that each assay can vary from one another (up to threefold) and have a slope significantly different from an ideal slope of 1 (P < 0.001). These results were confirmed by Bland-Altman bias plots and calculation of the limits of agreement that were all large. Conclusions: At this time, there is no global standard by which urinary albumin assays may be standardized. This study suggests the need for such standards. (C) 2003 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available