Michael P Metz | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Determining urinary calcium/creatinine cut-offs for the paediatric population using published data.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine a cut-off above which a result is considered abnormal for 'spot' calcium-to-creatinine ratio (Ca/Cr) in urine in the paediatric age group. While the cut-offs are not well established, there are many published reports of urine Ca/Cr excretion ratio in the literature. Rather than undertaking a difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and ultimately redundant study, an analysis of these published works was undertaken to determine urine Ca/Cr cut-offs for the laboratory. METHODS: Fourteen studies reporting urine Ca/Cr ratio available in the literature were reviewed. Each study was abstracted for several characteristics. The data were plotted and the line of best fit describing the data was determined. Using the function describing the line, cut-offs by pertinent age were recalculated. These cut-offs were then compared to the original data and to in-house data. RESULTS: The function describing the line of best fit was y=-0.3175 ln(x) +1.46 (y=Ca/Cr in mmol/mmol and x=age in years), r2=0.85. After consultation with the paediatric nephrologists and comparison with our in-house data, cut-offs for age groups of <1, 1-<2, 2-<5, 5-<10, and 10-18 years in mmol/mmol of 1.50, 1.25, 1.00, 0.70, and 0.60, respectively, were derived. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from 14 published studies, suitable spot urine Ca/Cr cut-offs from birth to 18 years of age were determined.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Newborn screening in South Australia: is it universal?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the biochemical screening rate of newborns in South Australia and the factors associated with babies not being screened. DESIGN: Matching of data in the SA Newborn Screening Centre database (acquired from Guthrie cards) with the SA perinatal data collection (compiled from supplementary birth records) to determine how many newborns missed screening. Risk factors for missed screening were identified from sociodemographic and clinical variables recorded in the perinatal data collection and analysed by multivariable unconditional logistic regression analysis. PATIENTS AND SETTING: All live births (n = 18,426) in South Australia in 1999, in the 63 hospitals assisting deliveries or in the home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of biochemical screening and missed screening in all newborns and among various subgroups; adjusted odds ratios (after multivariable logistic regression analysis) for risk factors for missed screening. RESULTS: The newborn screening rate in South Australia in 1999 was 97.8%. Babies born at home, born to an Aboriginal mother, or born to a mother who normally resided in another state were at higher risk of missed screening. Other factors associated with missed screening were having fewer than seven antenatal visits, prematurity (gestational age at birth < 32 weeks), congenital abnormality in the baby, use of paediatric intensive care, early discharge from hospital before 3 days (but especially after less than 1 day), and death of the baby during the neonatal period. CONCLUSION: In South Australia, while 2.2% of all newborns missed screening in 1999, in certain high-risk groups the proportions of unscreened babies were significantly higher. With a 2% missed screening rate, one might expect one newborn with a screening-detectable disorder to elude detection every other year in South Australia.

Female↗