OBJECTIVE: Five methods for oxalate analysis in urine are compared with respect to reliability, accuracy, and practicability. RESULTS: Suppressed and unsuppressed ionchromatography, as well as the enzymatic Sigma-Kit, achieve low coefficients of variation for the within-batch imprecision (1.1-8.0%) and between-day imprecision (1.6-7.2%). The results of these methods are comparable and the mean recovery rate ranges between 99.7% and 100.9%. The enzymatic Boehringer-Kit gives higher CV (3.1-9.5%) and the results are lower than those obtained by the methods mentioned above; the recovery rate is sufficient (92.4%). CONCLUSION: The handling of the chromatographic methods is very easy, whereas the enzymatic methods require more manual work. In relation to sample throughput, charges for the enzymatic methods are about twice as high as for the chromatographic methods. In respect to reliability and accuracy, the chromotropic acid method cannot be recommended (recovery rate 68%).
OBJECTIVE: Five methods for oxalate analysis in urine are compared with respect to reliability, accuracy, and practicability. RESULTS: Suppressed and unsuppressed ionchromatography, as well as the enzymatic Sigma-Kit, achieve low coefficients of variation for the within-batch imprecision (1.1-8.0%) and between-day imprecision (1.6-7.2%). The results of these methods are comparable and the mean recovery rate ranges between 99.7% and 100.9%. The enzymatic Boehringer-Kit gives higher CV (3.1-9.5%) and the results are lower than those obtained by the methods mentioned above; the recovery rate is sufficient (92.4%). CONCLUSION: The handling of the chromatographic methods is very easy, whereas the enzymatic methods require more manual work. In relation to sample throughput, charges for the enzymatic methods are about twice as high as for the chromatographic methods. In respect to reliability and accuracy, the chromotropic acid method cannot be recommended (recovery rate 68%).
Authors: Patricia Moussatche; Alexander Angerhofer; Witcha Imaram; Eric Hoffer; Kelsey Uberto; Christopher Brooks; Crystal Bruce; Daniel Sledge; Nigel G J Richards; Ellen W Moomaw Journal: Arch Biochem Biophys Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 4.013
Authors: Umar T Twahir; Corey N Stedwell; Cory T Lee; Nigel G J Richards; Nicolas C Polfer; Alexander Angerhofer Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Naim M Maalouf; Beverley Adams Huet; Andreas Pasch; John C Lieske; John R Asplin; Roswitha Siener; Albrecht Hesse; Jean-Marc Nuoffer; Felix J Frey; John Knight; Ross P Holmes; Joseph E Zerwekh; Olivier Bonny Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Ellen W Moomaw; Eric Hoffer; Patricia Moussatche; John C Salerno; Morgan Grant; Bridget Immelman; Richard Uberto; Andrew Ozarowski; Alexander Angerhofer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: James C Williams; Giovanni Gambaro; Allen Rodgers; John Asplin; Olivier Bonny; Antonia Costa-Bauzá; Pietro Manuel Ferraro; Giovanni Fogazzi; Daniel G Fuster; David S Goldfarb; Félix Grases; Ita P Heilberg; Dik Kok; Emmanuel Letavernier; Giuseppe Lippi; Martino Marangella; Antonio Nouvenne; Michele Petrarulo; Roswitha Siener; Hans-Göran Tiselius; Olivier Traxer; Alberto Trinchieri; Emanuele Croppi; William G Robertson Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 3.436