Advertisement

Diagnostic accuracy of urine dipstick for proteinuria category in Japanese workers

  • Tomoko UsuiEmail author
  • Yui Yoshida
  • Hiroshi Nishi
  • Shintaro Yanagimoto
  • Yutaka Matsuyama
  • Masaomi Nangaku
Original article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Urine dipstick tests are often used to evaluate proteinuria during health checkups. We examined the dipstick’s accuracy in assessing the proteinuria levels among Japanese workers.

Methods

We assessed subjects aged ≥ 18 years who had a health checkup at the University of Tokyo in 2016 or 2017 (n = 5383). Proteinuria was stratified by urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR): A1, < 150 mg/gCre; A2, 150–499 mg/gCre; and A3, ≥ 500 mg/gCre. The accuracy of a dipstick result of ± or higher to detect a PCR level of ≥ A2 was examined. We compared changes in dipstick results and PCR level in 136 subjects evaluated twice with a median interval of 119 days.

Results

The subjects’ mean age was 40 years, and half were women. The dipstick results were − in 94.9%, ± in 4.1%, and ≥ 1 + in 1.0%. The PCR level was A1, A2, A3 in 98.6%, 1.2%, and 0.2% of the subjects, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of a ± or higher dipstick result to detect A2 or higher were 66.2%, 95.6%, 17.5%, and 99.5%, respectively. Among the 136 subjects examined twice, 134 (98.5%) had no change in PCR level (A1 in all cases) despite a decrease or increase in dipstick results.

Conclusion

Urine dipstick results of ± or above had a high specificity but low sensitivity and positive predictive value to detect PCR proteinuria of A2 or higher. Confirmation by quantitative protein measurement should be recommended for individuals at high risk of chronic kidney disease.

Keywords

Chronic kidney disease Cost effectiveness Dipstick Health checkup Proteinuria Screening 

Notes

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Honoraria and manuscript fee: MN (Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD); Research funding: Scholarship or donation: MN (Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Astellas Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda). The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee at which the studies were conducted (IRB approval number 18-21) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Couser WG, Remuzzi G, Mendis S, Tonelli M. The contribution of chronic kidney disease to the global burden of major noncommunicable diseases. Kidney Int. 2011;80:1258–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Radhakrishnan J, Remuzzi G, Saran R, Williams DE, Rios-Burrows N, Powe N, et al. Taming the chronic kidney disease epidemic: a global view of surveillance efforts. Kidney Int. 2014;86:246–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO. clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2013(3):1–150.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iseki K, Ikemiya Y, Iseki C, Takishita S. Proteinuria and the risk of developing end-stage renal disease. Kidney Int. 2003;63:1468–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Astor BC, Matsushita K, Gansevoort RT, van der Velde M, Woodward M, Levey AS, et al. Lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and higher albuminuria are associated with mortality and end-stage renal disease. A collaborative meta-analysis of kidney disease population cohorts. Kidney Int. 2011;79:1331–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gansevoort RT, Matsushita K, van der Velde M, Astor BC, Woodward M, Levey AS, et al. Lower estimated GFR and higher albuminuria are associated with adverse kidney outcomes. A collaborative meta-analysis of general and high-risk population cohorts. Kidney Int. 2011;80:93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Usui T, Kanda E, Iseki C, Iseki K, Kashihara N, Nangaku M. Observation period for changes in proteinuria and risk prediction of end-stage renal disease in general population. Nephrology (Carlton). 2018;23:821–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coresh J, Heerspink HJL, Sang Y, Matsushita K, Arnlov J, Astor BC, et al. Change in albuminuria and subsequent risk of end-stage kidney disease: an individual participant-level consortium meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7:115–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wakasugi M, Kazama J, Narita I, Iseki K, Fujimoto S, Moriyama T, et al. Association between overall lifestyle changes and the incidence of proteinuria: a population-based, Cohort Study. Intern Med. 2017;56:1475–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iseki K, Iseki C, Ikemiya Y, Fukiyama K. Risk of developing end-stage renal disease in a cohort of mass screening. Kidney Int. 1996;49:800–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vivante A, Afek A, Frenkel-Nir Y, Tzur D, Farfel A, Golan E, et al. Persistent asymptomatic isolated microscopic hematuria in Israeli adolescents and young adults and risk for end-stage renal disease. JAMA. 2011;306:729–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iseki K, Konta T, Asahi K, Yamagata K, Fujimoto S, Tsuruya K, et al. Association of dipstick hematuria with all-cause mortality in the general population: results from the specific health check and guidance program in Japan. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2018;33:825–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Konta T, Hao Z, Takasaki S, Abiko H, Ishikawa M, Takahashi T, et al. Clinical utility of trace proteinuria for microalbuminuria screening in the general population. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2007;11:51–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    White SL, Yu R, Craig JC, Polkinghorne KR, Atkins RC, Chadban SJ. Diagnostic accuracy of urine dipsticks for detection of albuminuria in the general community. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park JI, Baek H, Kim BR, Jung HH. Comparison of urine dipstick and albumin:creatinine ratio for chronic kidney disease screening: a population-based study. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0171106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matsuo S, Imai E, Horio M, Yasuda Y, Tomita K, Nitta K, et al. Revised equations for estimated GFR from serum creatinine in Japan. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53:982–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trevethan R. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values: foundations, pliabilities, and pitfalls in research and practice. Front Public Health. 2017;20:307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    WHO Expert Consultation. Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet. 2004;363:157–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gai M, Motta D, Giunti S, Fop F, Masini S, Mezza E, et al. Comparison between 24-h proteinuria, urinary protein/creatinine ratio and dipstick test in patients with nephropathy: patterns of proteinuria in dipstick-negative patients. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2006;66:299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Nephrology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Nephrology and EndocrinologyThe University of Tokyo HospitalTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Division for Health Service PromotionThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations