Serum creatinine and urea assays on Atellica® CH and Architect® ci4100: method comparison
Abstract
Serum creatinine and urea are markers of renal function usually measured in conjunction. This study aims to evaluate the comparability of a new analyzer incorporated to our laboratory, Atellica® with the established analyzer, Architect ® ci 4100 in serum creatinine and urea assays. We ran 110 tests for creatinine and 107 for urea. In both analyzers, serum creatinine assay is based on the Jaffe reaction while urea measurement is based on the Roch-Ramel enzymatic reaction. Linear association between methods was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Methods comparability was assessed using Passing-Bablok and Deming linear regression. Differences between analyzers were evaluated using Bland-Altman plot. For serum creatinine, regression equations are Atellica = 0.9721 x Architect - 2.7282 (Passing & Bablok) and Atellica = 0.8884 x Architect + 1.3456 (Deming). The mean difference between the two methods is -11.7 µmol/L as indicated by Bland-Altman plot. For urea, regression lines are expressed as Atellica = 1.0252 x Architect – 0.1609 (Passing-Bablok) and Atellica = 1.1424 x Architect – 0.9532 (Deming). Bland-Altman plot presented a mean difference of -0.1 mmol/L. These results could be described as a very good agreement between the two methods, the two analyzers could be used interchangeably.
Downloads
References
2. Bargnoux AS, Kuster N, Cavalier E, Piéroni L, Souweine JS, Delanaye P et al. Serum creatinine: advantages and pitfalls. J Lab Precis Med. 2018; 3: 71–71.
3. Wang H, Ran J, Jiang T. Urea. Subcell Biochem. 2014; 73: 7-29.
4. Topic E, Nikolac N, Panteghini M, Theodorsson E, Salvagno GL, Miler M, et al. How to assess the quality of your analytical method?. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015; 53(11): 1707-1718.
5. International Standards Organisation. Medical laboratories — Requirements for quality and competence . ISO 15189, 3rd (ed) 2012.
6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. User verification of precision and estimation of bias; approved guideline-3rd (ed) Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI; 2014. CLSI document EP15-A3.
7. Guide technique d’accréditation en biologie médicale, COFRAC - SH GTA 01 - Révision 02.
8. Guide technique de vérification/validation des méthodes en biologie médicale, COFRAC - SH GTA 04 - Révision 01.
9. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018; 126(5): 1763-1768 .
10. Jensen AL, Kjelgaard-Hansen M. Method comparison in the clinical laboratory. Vet Clin Pathol. 2006; 35(3): 276-286.
11. Bilić-Zulle L. Comparison of methods: Passing and Bablok regression. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2011; 21(1): 49-52.
12. Gleason CR, Ji QC, Wickremsinhe ER. Evaluation of correlation between bioanalytical methods. Bioanalysis. 2020; 12(6): 419-426.
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8(2): 135-160.
14. Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015; 25(2): 141-151.
15. https://www.westgard.com/2019-clia-changes.htm
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
