Tuncay Küme1,2, Barıs Sağlam3, Cem Ergon2,4, Ali Rıza Sisman1,2. 1. Medical Biochemistry Department, Dokuz Eylül University Medical Faculty, Izmir, Turkey. 2. Central Laboratory, Dokuz Eylül University Hospital, Izmir, Turkey. 3. Biochemistry Laboratory, Biga State Hospital, Çanakkale, Turkey. 4. Medical Microbiology Department, Dokuz Eylül University Medical Faculty, Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the analytical performance characteristics of the two creatinine methods based on the Jaffe and enzymatic methods. METHODS: Two original creatinine methods, Jaffe and enzymatic, were evaluated on Architect c16000 automated analyzer via limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ), linearity, intra-assay and inter-assay precision, and comparability in serum and urine samples. The method comparison and bias estimation using patient samples according to CLSI guideline were performed on 230 serum and 141 urine samples by analyzing on the same auto-analyzer. RESULTS: The LODs were determined as 0.1 mg/dL for both serum methods and as 0.25 and 0.07 mg/dL for the Jaffe and the enzymatic urine method respectively. The LOQs were similar with 0.05 mg/dL value for both serum methods, and enzymatic urine method had a lower LOQ than Jaffe urine method, values at 0.5 and 2 mg/dL respectively. Both methods were linear up to 65 mg/dL for serum and 260 mg/dL for urine. The intra-assay and inter-assay precision data were under desirable levels in both methods. The higher correlations were determined between two methods in serum and urine (r=.9994, r=.9998 respectively). On the other hand, Jaffe method gave the higher creatinine results than enzymatic method, especially at the low concentrations in both serum and urine. CONCLUSIONS: Both Jaffe and enzymatic methods were found to meet the analytical performance requirements in routine use. However, enzymatic method was found to have better performance in low creatinine levels.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the analytical performance characteristics of the two creatinine methods based on the Jaffe and enzymatic methods. METHODS: Two original creatinine methods, Jaffe and enzymatic, were evaluated on Architect c16000 automated analyzer via limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ), linearity, intra-assay and inter-assay precision, and comparability in serum and urine samples. The method comparison and bias estimation using patient samples according to CLSI guideline were performed on 230 serum and 141 urine samples by analyzing on the same auto-analyzer. RESULTS: The LODs were determined as 0.1 mg/dL for both serum methods and as 0.25 and 0.07 mg/dL for the Jaffe and the enzymatic urine method respectively. The LOQs were similar with 0.05 mg/dL value for both serum methods, and enzymatic urine method had a lower LOQ than Jaffe urine method, values at 0.5 and 2 mg/dL respectively. Both methods were linear up to 65 mg/dL for serum and 260 mg/dL for urine. The intra-assay and inter-assay precision data were under desirable levels in both methods. The higher correlations were determined between two methods in serum and urine (r=.9994, r=.9998 respectively). On the other hand, Jaffe method gave the higher creatinine results than enzymatic method, especially at the low concentrations in both serum and urine. CONCLUSIONS: Both Jaffe and enzymatic methods were found to meet the analytical performance requirements in routine use. However, enzymatic method was found to have better performance in low creatinine levels.
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Jane Marsh; Lesley A Stevens; John W Kusek; Frederick Van Lente Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: R D Perrone; T I Steinman; G J Beck; C I Skibinski; H D Royal; M Lawlor; L G Hunsicker Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Lulu Yao; Kun Cai; Fanghua Mei; Xiaohua Wang; Chuangang Fan; Hong Jiang; Fang Xie; Ying Li; Lu Bai; Kang Peng; Wenwen Deng; Shenghan Lai; Jun Wang Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: João Soares Felício; Hana Andrade de Rider Britto; Pedro Celeira Cortez; Fabrício de Souza Resende; Manuela Nascimento de Lemos; Lorena Vilhena de Moraes; Vitória Teixeira de Aquino; Fernanda de Souza Parente; Natércia Neves Marques de Queiroz; João Felício Abrahão Neto; Angélica Leite de Alcântara; Wanderson Maia da Silva; Norberto Jorge Kzan de Souza Neto; Pedro Paulo Freire Piani; Ícaro José Araújo de Souza; Lilian de Souza D'Albuquerque Silva; Maria Clara Neres Iunes de Oliveira; Nivin Mazen Said; Gabriela Nascimento de Lemos; Franciane Trindade Cunha de Melo; Daniela Lopes Gomes; Ana Carolina Contente Braga de Souza; Melissa de Sá Oliveira Dos Reis; Valéria Suênya Galvão Leal; Isabel Jane Campos Lobato; Karem Miléo Felício Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 5.555