NakedSignal

Change explorer · Chemistry

Capillary point-of-care creatinine meter vs a Jaffe laboratory analyser

Public dataBuilt from a published open-access study.

Central lab serum analyser, kinetic Jaffe compared with point of care creatinine meter, capillary: 89 paired results from a published study by Krisher et al. (2024), re-analysed by NakedSignal as if one laboratory had switched from the first system to the second. At 1.2, 1.5 mg/dL, 28 results fall in a different category on the second system than on the first, against about 1 expected from repeat testing alone. That expected count uses a default repeat-test imprecision, the setting our program uses when no precision data are supplied, not one measured in this study, so the two numbers are not a test of whether the switch moves more results than repeat testing would.

Chemistry

Creatinine, mg/dL

Central lab serum analyser, kinetic Jaffe compared with Point of care creatinine meter, capillary. 89 paired results.

Compare it with the other comparisons in the explorer

Comparison line

The new system reads 31.5% higher than the old system on average. The comparison line (Passing-Bablok) has a slope of 4.333 (95% interval 3.116 to 6.407) and an intercept of -2.277.

Public data
Comparison line, creatinine (mg/dL)Comparison line with slope 4.333 (95% interval 3.116 to 6.407) and intercept -2.277, drawn against the line of no change. Decision limits drawn at 1.2, 1.5 mg/dL. Where the comparison line sits above the line of no change, the new system reads higher; below, lower.024611.51.21.5No changeComparison lineOld system, mg/dLNew system, mg/dL

Fig. 1. The comparison line against the line of no change, over the range of the decision limits (1.2, 1.5 mg/dL). Dots mark where each line meets each limit; the gap between them is the bias at that limit.

Crossing each limit

Results that fall on the other side of a decision limit on the new system than on the old, read as if the new system had replaced the old, against the number repeat testing on one unchanged system would move. The program reports the count across all limits together.

All decision limits together (1.2, 1.5 mg/dL)

Crossed between the two systems: 28

Expected from repeat testing alone: about 1

Grade and warnings

  • Re-test band: Indicative: 89 pairs, below the 100-pair protocol minimum.
  • Band half-width around each limit: 42.6%.
  • Results re-tested on data the band was not fitted to, median: 15%.
  • Share of the excess crossings caught on unseen data, comparison line and band together: 98%; comparison line alone: 93%. The excess is the crossings above what repeat testing alone would cause, so the share can exceed 100% or fall below zero.
  • Repeat-test imprecision: default value.

Source

Krisher L, Jaramillo D, Dye-Robinson A, Dally M, Butler-Dawson J, Brindley S, Pilloni D, Cruz A, Villarreal Hernandez K, Schaeffer J, Adgate JL, Newman LS (2024). Application and comparison of point-of-care devices for field evaluation of underlying health status of Guatemalan sugarcane workers. PLOS Glob Public Health. doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0003380 (opens in a new tab); PMC11265697 (opens in a new tab). Licence: CC BY 4.0 (opens in a new tab). Re-analysed by NakedSignal. The deposit names the systems.

Show the numbers
All values for creatinine, Central lab serum analyser, kinetic Jaffe to Point of care creatinine meter, capillary
FieldValue
Paired results used89
Comparison line slope4.333333
Slope, 95% interval3.115842 to 6.406667
Comparison line intercept-2.276667
Mean difference, new minus old, as % of old31.496
Decision limits (mg/dL)1.2, 1.5
Crossed between the two systems28
Expected from repeat testing alone1.25
Band half-width (%)42.6
Re-tested, unseen data, median (%)14.61
Re-tested, unseen data, range (%)12.36 to 15.73
Excess caught, line and band (%)97.52
Excess caught, line alone (%)93.45

Related

Other comparisons from the same study:

Guide: Jaffe or enzymatic creatinine

Every study behind the explorer, with its licence: public data. How the counts are made: how it works.

Changing a system like this one?

Request a first site report