Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
Based on our findings, the fluoroscopy team determined that because of a low occurrence of positive urine dipsticks, performing a dipstick only on suspicious specimens as opposed to every specimen is best nursing practice.
Similar(59)
In a sensitivity analysis, use of TDF was significantly associated with proteinuria, unadjusted OR of 3.56 (1.21-10.50), p = 0.02, where only patients with confirmed uPCR > 20 (not dipstick-only proteinuria) were included.
Urine analysis is a simple but essential test for patients with renal disease irrespective of its cause, but urine dipstick detects only albumin and is unreliable for detecting myeloma paraprotein.
Every urine sample collected should not only be evaluated by a dipstick but also evaluated microscopically.
This is logical whereby leukocyte esterase dipsticks have several color blocks while nitrite dipstick has only a binary outcome.
However, in our study urine dipstick detected only two cases of prediabetes and failed to identify any of the three individuals with diabetes.
The NICE guidelines recommend the use of dipstick testing only in the case of children over the age of three years.
Second, the measurement of proteinuria and hematuria by the dipstick test only is a limitation because of the relatively low precision and thus misclassification bias.
Some GPs disagreed with performing the nitrite dipstick test only and preferred to combine this test with leukocyte esterase dipstick test, which is often available on the same strip.
Because ratio of albumin to creatinine (ACR) was not available and because urine dipstick provides only a semi-quantitative estimation of proteinuria and has imperfect accuracy in diagnosis of persistent proteinuria, kidney damage in stage 1 and 2 CKD in our study was identified as 24-hour urinary protein ≥ 300 mg per day.
Dipsticks, however, only detect albumin in a concentration around 300 mg/L.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com