Aim: Since clinicians especially preferred daily urine protein analysis with ESBACH method in many occasions we aimed to compare results of ESBACH with turbidimetric automation method.Materials and Methods: Esbach results of 24 hour collected urine samples were compared with benzethonium chloride turbidimetric method by using Abbott Aeroset analyzer (Abbott Park, USA).Results: There was an extremely significant difference between the two methods using pairedsample T test (2.95 ± 1.93 glday and 4.99 ± 3.70 glday; p
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Since clinicians especially preferred daily urine protein analysis with ESBACH method in many occasions we aimed to compare results of ESBACH with turbidimetric automation method.Materials and Methods: Esbach results of 24 hour collected urine samples were compared with benzethonium chloride turbidimetric method by using Abbott Aeroset analyzer (Abbott Park, USA).Results: There was an extremely significant difference between the two methods using pairedsample T test (2.95 ± 1.93 glday and 4.99 ± 3.70 glday; p
📊
Key Findings & Data:Aim: Since clinicians especially preferred daily urine protein analysis with ESBACH method in many occasions we aimed to compare results of ESBACH with turbidimetric automation method.Materials and Methods: Esbach results of 24 hour collected urine samples were compared with benzethonium chloride turbidimetric method by using Abbott Aeroset analyzer (Abbott Park, USA).Results: There was an extremely significant difference between the two methods using pairedsample T test (2.95 ± 1.93 glday and 4.99 ± 3.70 glday; p
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Aim: Since clinicians especially preferred daily urine protein analysis with ESBACH method in many occasions we aimed to compare results of ESBACH with turbidimetric automation method.Materials and Methods: Esbach results of 24 hour collected urine samples were compared with benzethonium chloride turbidimetric method by using Abbott Aeroset analyzer (Abbott Park, USA).Results: There was an extremely significant difference between the two methods using pairedsample T test (2.95 ± 1.93 glday and 4.99 ± 3.70 glday; p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
Aim: Since clinicians especially preferred daily urine protein analysis with ESBACH method in many occasions we aimed to compare results of ESBACH with turbidimetric automation method.Materials and Methods: Esbach results of 24 hour collected urine samples were compared with benzethonium chloride turbidimetric method by using Abbott Aeroset analyzer (Abbott Park, USA).Results: There was an extremely significant difference between the two methods using pairedsample T test (2.95 ± 1.93 glday and 4.99 ± 3.70 glday; p
Özet
Amaç: Klinisyenlerin ESBACH yöntemiyle idrarda protein ölçümünü bazı durumlarda tercih etmesiyle ilgili olarak, ESBACH ve türbidimetrik otomasyon yöntemi ile elde edilen sonuçları karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: 24 saatlik idrar örneğinde (n=51) protein ölçümü Esbach yöntemi ile yapıldı ve Abbott Aeroset (Abbott Park, ABD) analizörüyle ben-zethonium kloridli turbidimetrik yöntem ile karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Pairedsample T testi ile iki yöntem arasındaki fark ileri düzeyde anlamlı bulundu (sırasıyla 2,95 ± 1,93 g/gün ve 4,99 ± 3,70 g/gün; p
🔖
Cite This Article
YILMAZ, G., ARAL, H., HOCAOĞLU, S., İNAL, B. B., OĞUZ, O., GÜVENEN, G., USTA, M. (2022). Comparing Esbach Method with Turbidimetric Method in Proteinuria. İstanbul Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 12–15. https://ajindex.com/articles/552640
Price CP, Newall RG, Boyd JC. Use of protein: Creatinine ratio me- asurements on random urine samples for prediction of significant proteinuria: A systematic review. Clin Chem 2005; 51:1577-86. 2.Lemann J, Doumas BT. Proteinuria in health and disease assessed by measuring the urinary protein/creatinine ratio. Clin Chem 1987; 33: 297-9. 3.Papanna R, Mann LK, Kouides RW, Glantz JC. Protein/creati-i nine ratio in preeclampsia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112:35-44. 4.Aggarwal N, Suri V, Soni S, Chopra V, Kohli HS. A prospective comparison of random urine proteincreatmine ratio vs 24hour urine protein in women with preeclampsia. Medscape J Med. 2008;10:98-100 5.Antunes VV, Veronese FJ, Morales JV. Diagnostic accuracy of the protein/creatinine ratio in urine samples to estimate 24 h proteinuria in patients with primary glomerulopathies: a longitudinal study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008; 23: 22426. Urine proteintocreatinine ratio in an untimed urine collection is a reliable measure of proteinuri-a in lupus nephritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007; 46: 64-52. 7.Lane C, Brown M, Dunsmuir W, Kelly J, Mangos G. Can spot urine protein/creatinine ratio replace 24 h urine protein in usual clinical nephrology? Nephrology (Carlton). 2006; 11: 245-9. 8.Yenson M. Klinik biyokimya laboratuvar çalışmaları. İ.Ü. Istanbul Tıp Fakültesi yayınlan, Rektörlük No: 2950. 1982; 162. 9.Tietz NW. A model for comprehensive measurement system in cli- nical chemistry.Clin Chem 1979; 25: 833-9. 10.Koch DD, Peters T. Selection and evaluation of methods. Tietz textbook of clinical chemistry. (Editors:) Burtis CA, Ashwood ER. 3 rd edition, Elsevier Inc, Missouri. 1999: 320-4. 11.Dube J, Girouard J, Leclerc P, Douville P. Problems with the estimation of urine protein by automated assays. Clin Biochem. 2005; 38: 479-85. 12.Iijima S, Cho H, Sakai N, Shiba K, Toyoshima Y, Nishida K, Kobayashi S. Development of a new method for measuring total urinary protein using acid violet 6 B pigment. J Clin Lab Anal. 2003; 17: 147-54. 13.Le Bricon T. Laboratory identification and measurement of urinary proteins (abstract) Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2002; 60: 525-40.