{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Review on adherence of the literature to official recommendations on albuminuria harmonization and standardization.
{Author}: Mussap M;Sortino M;Monteverde E;Tomaiuolo R;Banfi G;Locatelli M;Carobene A;
{Journal}: Clin Chem Lab Med
{Volume}: 61
{Issue}: 12
{Year}: 2023 11 27
{Factor}: 8.49
{DOI}: 10.1515/cclm-2023-0408
{Abstract}: Albuminuria standardization is a key issue to produce reliable and equivalent results between laboratories. We investigated whether official recommendations on albuminuria harmonization are followed in the literature. The PubMed database was searched from June 1 to September 26, 2021. The search terms included urine albumin, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR), and albuminuria. A total of 159 articles were considered eligible; 50.9 % reported the type of urine collection. Specifically, 58.1 % collected a random spot urine specimen, 21 % collected a first morning void, and 6.2 % collected a 24-h specimen. Overall, 15 % of articles reported data on sample shipping, storage, and centrifugation and 13.3 % mentioned the preanalytical phase without any data on albuminuria. The method for albuminuria was properly described in 31.4 % of articles; of these, 54.9 % used immunological methods, and 8.9 % contained errors or missing data. Most articles (76.7 %) expressed test results as albuminuria-to-creatininuria ratio. Different decision levels were utilized in 130 articles; of these, 36 % used a decision level of ≤30 mg/g creatininuria and 23.7 % used three decision levels (≤30, 30-300, and ≥300 mg/g). The failure to follow guidelines on albuminuria harmonization was mainly found in the preanalytical phase. The poor awareness of the importance of preanalytical steps on test result may be a possible explanation.