• Masahiro Naruse, Masashi Mukoyama, Jun Morinaga, Masanobu Miyazaki, Kunitoshi Iseki, and Kunihiro Yamagata.
• Medical Corporation Gyokuwakai, Tamana Dai-Ichi Clinic, 79-1 Tsuiji, Tamana, Kumamoto, 865-0065, Japan. naruse@gyokuwakai.or.jp.
• Clin. Exp. Nephrol. 2020 Jan 1; 24 (1): 45-52.

BackgroundThe dipstick urinalysis for proteinuria has been used for chronic kidney disease (CKD) screening at community-based health checkups; however, it has major drawbacks in that the result is only semi-quantitative and is influenced by urine concentration.MethodsWe conducted urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) measurements of 590 participants who showed a result of more than trace proteinuria on a dipstick analysis and evaluated the usefulness of UPCR measurements in community-based health checkups.ResultsThe UPCR values increased in accordance with the severity of the dipstick test findings, but statistical significance was only obtained between (±) and (1+), between (±) and (2+), and between (±) and (3+) groups. When the participants with (±) proteinuria were subjected to CGA classification (a classification of CKD by cause, glomerular filtration rate category, and albuminuria category) according to their UPCR data, a significant proportion of subjects (277, 77.0%) moved from the A2 category into A1, which is a less severe category. Conversely, 21 subjects (5.8%) were reclassified into a more severe category (A3). Thus, a dipstick test may produce a non-negligible number of false negatives as well as a large number of false positives. Similarly, the classifications of more than half of the subjects with (1+) or more severe proteinuria were changed based on their UPCR results.ConclusionThe dipstick urinalysis for proteinuria appears less reliable than expected, suggesting that the quantitative measurement of urine protein should be performed even during mass health checkups to ensure the early detection and prevention of CKD.

28 keywords...

hide…