By Topic

A multicentre study of an enhanced optical method for measuring concentration of uric acid removed during dialysis

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

6 Author(s)
Jerotskaja, J. ; Dept. of Biomed. Eng., Tallinn Univ. of Technol., Tallinn, Estonia ; Uhlin, F. ; Lauri, K. ; Tanner, R.
more authors

The aim of this study was to compare concentration measurements of uric acid (UA) removed during dialysis by two algorithms based on UV-absorbance and the 1st derivate of UV absorbance. Ten uremic patients from Tallinn and ten from Linkoumlping, during 30+40 haemodialysis treatments, were followed at the Departments of Dialysis and Nephrology at North-Estonian Medical Centre and at Linkoumlping University Hospital. The dialysate samples were taken and analyzed by means of UA concentration at the chemical laboratory and with a double-beam spectrophotometer. UV absorbance and derivate of UV absorbance was transformed into UA concentration in the spent dialysate using the regression models from the calibration set of material, noted as UV-absorbance (UV_A) and the 1st derivate of UV absorbance (UV_D) method. These models were tested on validation set of material and concentrations of UA from the two methods were compared regarding mean values and SD. Mean concentration of UA were 52.7 plusmn 25.0 micromol/l measured at the chemical laboratory (UA_Lab), 54.9 plusmn 23.8 micromol/l determined by UV_A and 52.9 plusmn 23.0 micromol/l determined by UV_D. The results of mean concentrations were not significantly different (p ges 0.54). The systematic errors were -7.8 % and -3.3% and random errors were 15.8 % and 10.4 % using UV_A and UV_D respectively. The systematic and random errors were significantly different (p < 0.05) indicating that the new algorithm enables more accurate UA estimation.

Published in:

Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009. EMBC 2009. Annual International Conference of the IEEE

Date of Conference:

3-6 Sept. 2009