- Author:
	        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Hyunjin KIM
			        		
			        		
			        		
			        			1
			        			
			        		
			        		
			        		
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Jinsook LIM
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Sun Hoe KOO
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Jimyung KIM
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Seon Young KIM
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Gye Cheol KWON
			        		
			        		
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		
			        		Author Information
			        		
 - Publication Type:Original Article
 - Keywords: CRE2; Precision; Linearity; Comparison; Accuracy
 - MeSH: Bias (Epidemiology); Creatinine*; Delivery of Health Care; Diagnosis; Indicators and Reagents; Kidney Diseases; Methods; Quality Control; Risk Assessment
 - From:Laboratory Medicine Online 2019;9(1):6-11
 - CountryRepublic of Korea
 - Language:Korean
 - Abstract: BACKGROUND: For creatinine measurement, the enzymatic method is known to be more accurate than the Jaffe method; however, the latter is still widely used. We evaluated the performance of the CRE2 reagent (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., USA), which uses a modified Jaffe method. METHODS: Three quality control standards were used for precision evaluations of CRE2 on Dimension VISTA 500 instrument (Siemens). Moreover, the linearity and carryover characteristics were assessed. Sixty-eight creatinine results obtained using the CRE2 and ECREA (enzymatic) reagents (Siemens) were compared with those obtained using the L-CRE (enzymatic) reagent (Shinyang Diagnostics, Korea). The accuracy of CRE2, ECREA, and L-CRE was evaluated using a standard reference material. RESULTS: The CV of within-run (0.7–2.4%), between-run (0.4–1.7%), between-day precision (0.7–0.9%) for three standards, and total CV for medium (1.6%) and high levels (1.3%) satisfied the analytical goal. The linearity for CRE2 was excellent (R2=0.999). Comparisons of CRE2 and ECREA to L-CRE were well correlated (r=0.996 and 0.997, respectively). In comparison with L-CRE, 5 CRE2 results and 15 ECREA results exceeded minimum bias goal (5.1%) in samples with creatinine levels of >1 mg/dL. The carryover rate was −0.04%. In terms of accuracy, the percent bias values of CRE2, ECREA, and L-CRE were 7.4, −6.4, and −3.4, respectively, for low level; and 3.9, −1.5, and 0.7, respectively, for high level. CONCLUSIONS: For creatinine measurements, the CRE2 reagent showed good performance. It can be used in the diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and risk assessment of kidney diseases.
 
            
