Evaluation and comparison of Abbott Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine methods: Could the old method meet the new requirements?
- 15 February 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
- Vol. 32 (1)
- https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22168
Abstract
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. 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. 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. 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.Keywords
This publication has 40 references indexed in Scilit:
- Estimating GFR Using the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) Creatinine Equation: More Accurate GFR Estimates, Lower CKD Prevalence Estimates, and Better Risk PredictionsAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2010
- Variability of Creatinine Measurements in Clinical Laboratories: Results from the CRIC StudyAmerican Journal of Nephrology, 2010
- A Software Upgrade: CKD Testing in 2010American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2010
- Biological variation of cystatin C and creatinineScandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2009
- Long-Term Effects of Primary Hypothyroidism on Renal Function in ChildrenThe Journal of Pediatrics, 2008
- Reduced cystatin C-estimated GFR and increased creatinine-estimated GFR in comparison with iohexol-estimated GFR in a hyperthyroid patient: A case reportJournal of Medical Case Reports, 2008
- Testing for Chronic Kidney Disease: A Position Statement From the National Kidney FoundationAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2007
- Does the ID-MS traceable MDRD equation work and is it suitable for use with compensated Jaffé and enzymatic creatinine assays?Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 2006
- ForewordAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2002
- Renal handling of radiolabelled human cystatin C in the ratScandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 1996