Influence of preanalytic and analytic variables in canine and feline urine specific gravity measurement by refractometer

5Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Urine specific gravity (USG), which is usually measured by refractometry, is an important indicator of renal concentrating ability. Few studies have evaluated refractometers with separate scales for canine and feline urine. Variables such as protein content or storage time may influence the USG. We compared the effects of measuring USG with a refractometer with single or separate scales for canine and feline urine, investigated inter- and intra-observer variability, and measured agreement between whole urine and supernatant. We evaluated the correlation between USG and osmolality, the influence of urinary protein on USG and osmolality, and the impact of storage time up to 6 mo. We examined 252 canine and 126 feline samples. Bland–Altman analysis revealed higher USG values of the single-scale refractometer than the dual-scale refractometer, with a mean difference (bias) of < 0.001 for canine and 0.003 for feline specimens. Inter- and intra-observer variability were acceptable. Good agreement was shown between USG of whole urine and supernatant. Correlations between USG and osmolality were excellent (0.98–0.99, p < 0.001). Proteinuria up to 1 g/L had no major impact on USG or osmolality. Storage time had no significant effect on USG. The difference between the refractometers is clinically irrelevant, and the use of a refractometer with separate feline and canine scales is unnecessary. Whole urine and supernatant stored up to 6 mo can both be used for USG measurement. The influence of proteinuria <1 g/L on USG and osmolality is negligible.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mösch, M., Reese, S., Hartmann, K., & Dorsch, R. (2020). Influence of preanalytic and analytic variables in canine and feline urine specific gravity measurement by refractometer. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 32(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1040638719896785

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free