BACKGROUND: The prevalence of albuminuria in the general population is high, but awareness of it is low. Therefore, we sought to develop and validate a self-assessment tool that allows individuals to estimate their probability of having albuminuria. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: The population-based Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study for model development and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004 for model validation. US adults 45 years or older in the REGARDS Study (n = 19,697) and NHANES 1999-2004 (n = 7,168). PREDICTOR: Candidate items for the self-assessment tool were collected using a combination of interviewer- and self-administered questionnaires. OUTCOME: Albuminuria was defined as a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g in spot samples. RESULTS: 8 items were included in the self-assessment tool (age, race, sex, current smoking, self-rated health, and self-reported history of diabetes, hypertension, and stroke). These items provided a C statistic of 0.709 (95% CI, 0.699-0.720) and good model fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ(2)P = 0.49). In the external validation data set, the C statistic for discriminating individuals with and without albuminuria using the self-assessment tool was 0.714. Using a threshold of ≥10% probability of albuminuria from the self-assessment tool, 36% of US adults 45 years or older in NHANES 1999-2004 would test positive and be recommended for screening. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for albuminuria associated with a probability ≥10% were 66%, 68%, 23%, and 93%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Repeated urine samples were not available to assess the persistency of albuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: 8 self-report items provide good discrimination for the probability of having albuminuria. This tool may encourage individuals with a high probability to request albuminuria screening.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of albuminuria in the general population is high, but awareness of it is low. Therefore, we sought to develop and validate a self-assessment tool that allows individuals to estimate their probability of having albuminuria. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: The population-based Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study for model development and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004 for model validation. US adults 45 years or older in the REGARDS Study (n = 19,697) and NHANES 1999-2004 (n = 7,168). PREDICTOR: Candidate items for the self-assessment tool were collected using a combination of interviewer- and self-administered questionnaires. OUTCOME: Albuminuria was defined as a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g in spot samples. RESULTS: 8 items were included in the self-assessment tool (age, race, sex, current smoking, self-rated health, and self-reported history of diabetes, hypertension, and stroke). These items provided a C statistic of 0.709 (95% CI, 0.699-0.720) and good model fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ(2)P = 0.49). In the external validation data set, the C statistic for discriminating individuals with and without albuminuria using the self-assessment tool was 0.714. Using a threshold of ≥10% probability of albuminuria from the self-assessment tool, 36% of US adults 45 years or older in NHANES 1999-2004 would test positive and be recommended for screening. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for albuminuria associated with a probability ≥10% were 66%, 68%, 23%, and 93%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Repeated urine samples were not available to assess the persistency of albuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: 8 self-report items provide good discrimination for the probability of having albuminuria. This tool may encourage individuals with a high probability to request albuminuria screening.
Authors: Lawrence A Frazee; Seyhoon Samandari; Natthavat Tanphaichitr; Claire C Bourguet; Eugene W Pfister Journal: Am J Ther Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.688
Authors: Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin; Lesley A Stevens; Jane Manzi; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Andrew S Levey Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-11-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marc M H Hermans; Ronald Henry; Jacqueline M Dekker; Jeroen P Kooman; Piet J Kostense; Giel Nijpels; Robert J Heine; Coen D A Stehouwer Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Juan P Casas; Weiliang Chua; Stavros Loukogeorgakis; Patrick Vallance; Liam Smeeth; Aroon D Hingorani; Raymond J MacAllister Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rikki M Tanner; Mark Woodward; Carmen Peralta; David G Warnock; Orlando Gutiérrez; Daichi Shimbo; Holly Kramer; Ronit Katz; Paul Muntner Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Cheryl L Tran; David T Selewski; Gia J Oh; Jonathan P Troost; Susan F Massengill; Samhar I Al-Akash; Shefali Mahesh; Rasheda Amin; Isa F Ashoor; Rahul Chanchlani; Mahmoud Kallash; Robert P Woroniecki; Debbie S Gipson Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.418