These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of determination of glucose in urine with some commercially available dipsticks and tablets.
    Author: Bandi ZL, Myers JL, Bee DE, James GP.
    Journal: Clin Chem; 1982 Oct; 28(10):2110-5. PubMed ID: 7127740.
    Abstract:
    Four commercial products for urine glucose determination were evaluated and compared with a quantitative hexokinase procedure. We examined precision, sensitivity, and analytical recovery of glucose from glucose-supplemented urine samples and comparison of methods, using patients' samples. Only "Chemstrip uG" (Bio-Dynamics Inc.) could differentiate between 0.3 g/L (upper limit of normal) and 0.6 g/L urine glucose concentrations. "Tes-Tape" (Lilly) and "Diastix" (Ames) gave positive readings at 0.3 g/L; "Clinitest" (Ames) detected glucose only over 1 g/L. Analytical recovery of glucose was best, for all four products, between 1 and 2.5 g/L; Chemstrip uG was the most nearly accurate among the four. Between 5 and 20 g/L glucose concentrations, Tes-Tape, Diastix, and Clinitest tended to give falsely low results; the use of Chemstrip uG resulted in overestimates of concentration at 20 g of glucose per liter. Only Chemistrip uG and Clinitest (two-drop method) had linear ranges extending to 50 g/L; Chemstrip uG had better precision and accuracy at this concentration. Of the four products, Chemstrip uG had the lowest within-technologist and technologist-to-technologist random analytical errors. In method comparison on patients' samples, Chemstrip uG was significantly stronger in its association with the quantitative hexokinase method than was Diastix, Clinitest, or Tes-Tape.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]