Utility of Urinary Protein‐Creatinine Ratio and Protein Content in a 24‐Hour Urine Collection in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature on the utility of spot urinary protein-creatinine ratio (PCR) as a screening test for proteinuria and its ability to accurately measure proteinuria compared with 24-hour urine collection (24H-P) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: We conducted a literature search (1900-2015) for articles comparing PCR and 24H-P in SLE patients in the databases Medline, Web of Science, and Embase. Included studies and their results were critically appraised and analyzed. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1,001 patients; 84.01% women) were included. Ten studies reported on Pearson's correlation (range 0.67-0.94), and 3 studies reported on Spearman's correlation (range 0.78-1.00). The meta-analysis of studies with Pearson's correlation showed a high overall correlation of 0.80 between 24H-P and PCR, yet with high heterogeneity (I(2) = 97.2%). Correlation analysis is not sufficient to evaluate the utility of a new test against the gold standard test, and analysis on agreement is required. Seven studies reported on agreement: 3 studies analyzed concordance correlation coefficient (0.48-0.94), 3 analyzed intraclass correlation coefficient (0.66-0.95), and 1 analyzed kappa coefficient (0.58). These results confirmed that the agreement between 24H-P and PCR was inappropriate. Three studies included Bland-Altman plots, and the results also demonstrated poor agreement between both tests. CONCLUSION: The PCR has a utility as a screening test for proteinuria in SLE patients. The studies' results of 24H-P and PCR showed poor agreement between both tests, signifying that PCR should not be a substitute for the gold standard test (24H-P) to accurately measure proteinuria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".