In resource-limited settings access to central laboratory services is limited. Highlighting the need for laboratories to move to enzymatic methods to measure creatinine.īackground: the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is predicted to rise over the next fewĭecades. The laboratory Jaffe method performed poorly,
POC devices showed wider imprecision with coefficients of variation ranging from 4.6 -ġ0.2% compared to 3.5% for the laboratory Jaffe method.Ĭonclusion: POC eGFR showed improved performance over laboratory Jaffe eGFR, however POCĭevices suffered from imprecision and large bias.
Within 30% of mGFR ranged from 0.56 – 0.72 for POC devices and from 0.36 – 0.43 for the laboratory However, all POC devices had less positive bias than the Results: Calculated GFR for laboratory and POC creatinine measurements overestimated GFR MDRD) for POC and laboratory creatinine were compared to iohexol mGFR. Method in 670 participants from a rural area in South Africa. Venous whole blood, and laboratory creatinine was measured using the compensated kinetic Jaffe Methods: POC creatinine was measured using iSTAT® and StatSensor® devices in capillary and Measurement and to compare their performance to a gold standard measurement using iohexol The aim of this study was to evaluate point-of-care (POC) technologies for serum creatinine
Tools, yet access to centralised laboratory services remains limited in primary care resource-limited Serum creatinine and estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are critical diagnostic Introduction: The prevalence of chronic kidney disease is rising rapidly in low- and middle-incomeĬountries.
0 kommentar(er)
