NakedSignal

Change explorer · Chemistry

Jaffe vs enzymatic creatinine on the same analyser

Public dataA public method-comparison deposit, not a laboratory's data. Systems are described generically; the source names them.

Central lab analyser, enzymatic creatinine replaced by same analyser, kinetic Jaffe creatinine: 529 paired results from a published study by Schmidt et al. (2015), re-analysed by NakedSignal as if the study were one laboratory. At 1.2, 1.5 mg/dL, 23 results changed category after the change, against about 41 expected from repeat testing alone. Here the change moved fewer results than repeat testing would, and the report says so.

run 25 September 2026 · config 6eb23df45893 · run file sha256 5586cd892ef1

Chemistry

Creatinine, mg/dL

Central lab analyser, enzymatic creatinine replaced by Same analyser, kinetic Jaffe creatinine. 529 paired results.

Compare it with the other comparisons in the explorer

Comparison line

The new system reads 0.3% higher than the old system on average. The comparison line has a slope of 0.939 (95% interval 0.911 to 0.964) and an intercept of 0.053.

Public data
Comparison line, creatinine (mg/dL)Comparison line with slope 0.939 (95% interval 0.911 to 0.964) and intercept 0.053, 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.11.511.51.21.5No 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.

run 25 September 2026 · config 6eb23df45893 · run file sha256 5586cd892ef1

Crossing each limit

Results that moved across a decision limit when the new system 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 after the change: 23

Expected from repeat testing alone: about 41

Grade and warnings

  • Re-test band: full (at least the protocol minimum of pairs).
  • Band half-width around each limit: 7.07%.
  • Results re-tested on data the band was not fitted to, median: 14%.
  • Repeat-test imprecision: assumed, not measured at this site.
  • Warning from the program: The change moved fewer than 5 more people across a line than repeat testing alone would; excess caught is not meaningful here.

Source

Schmidt RL, Straseski JA, Raphael KL, Adams AH, Lehman CM (2015). A Risk Assessment of the Jaffe vs Enzymatic Method for Creatinine Measurement in an Outpatient Population. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143205 (opens in a new tab); PMC4657986 (opens in a new tab). Licence: CC BY 4.0 (opens in a new tab). Changes: Paired results re-analysed by NakedSignal's program; instruments described generically; only derived results are shown. The deposit names the systems.

Show the numbers
All values for creatinine, Central lab analyser, enzymatic creatinine to Same analyser, kinetic Jaffe creatinine
FieldValue
Paired results used529
Comparison line slope0.939394
Slope, 95% interval0.91138 to 0.964286
Comparison line intercept0.05303
Mean difference, new minus old, as % of old0.343
Decision limits (mg/dL)1.2, 1.5
Crossed after the change23
Expected from repeat testing alone40.83
Band half-width (%)7.07
Re-tested, unseen data, median (%)14.37
Re-tested, unseen data, range (%)13.99 to 15.31
Excess caught, line and band (%)none
Excess caught, line alone (%)none

Related

Guide: Jaffe or enzymatic creatinine

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

Changing a system like this one?

Request a first site report