Abstract
Objectives
The ratio of tubular maximum reabsorption of phosphate to glomerular filtration rate (TmP/GFR) is used to evaluate renal phosphate transport. TmP/GFR is most probably calculated using the formula described by Kenny and Glen or obtained from the nomogram described by Walton and Bijvoet. Even though the calculation itself is well described, no attention has been given to its measurement uncertainty (MU). The aim of this study is to provide a procedure for evaluating the MU of the Kenny and Glen formula; a procedure which is based on the Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM).
Methods
TmP/GFR is a quantity value calculated from the input of measured values for serum (plasma) phosphate and creatinine, plus measured values of urine phosphate and creatinine. Given the measurement uncertainty associated with these input quantities, the GUM describes the mathematical procedures required to determine the uncertainty of the calculated TmP/GFR. From a medical laboratory perspective, these input uncertainties are the standard deviations of the respective internal quality control estimates for serum and urine phosphate, plus serum and urine creatinine.
Results
Based on representative measurements for the input quantities and their associated standard uncertainties, the expanded relative uncertainty for a calculated TmP/GFR is approximately 3.0–4.5 %.
Conclusions
With the continued relevance of the TmP/GFR procedure and the use of creatinine clearance as an estimate of GFR, the addition of an uncertainty estimate is important as an adjunct to this diagnostic procedure.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Author contributions: All authors contributed equally to the design and development of the study. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version for publication. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Ethical approval: Not applicable.
References
1. Bijvoet, OLM. Relation of plasma phosphate concentration to renal tubular reabsorption of phosphate. Clin Sci 1969;37:23–36.Search in Google Scholar
2. Bijvoet, OLM. The assessment of phosphate reabsorption. Clin Chim Acta 1969;26:15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-8981(69)90280-0.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Bijvoet, OLM, Van der Sluys Veer, J. The interpretation of laboratory tests in bone disease. Clin Endocrinol Metabol 1972;1:217–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-595x(72)80058-6.Search in Google Scholar
4. Kenny, AP, Glen, ACA. Tests of phosphate reabsorption. Lancet 1973;21:158. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(73)93112-7.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Walton, RJ, Bijvoet, OLM. Nomogram for derivation of renal threshold phosphate concentration. Lancet 1975;16:309–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(75)92736-1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Anderson, J. A method for estimating Tm for phosphate in man. J Physiol 1955;130:268–77. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1955.sp005409.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. Barth, JH, Jones, RG, Payne, RB. Calculation of renal tubular reabsorption of phosphate: the algorithm performs better than the nomogram. Ann Clin Biochem 2000;37:79–81. https://doi.org/10.1258/0004563001901371.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Rigo-Bonnin, R, Canalias, F. Measurement uncertainty estimation for derived biological quantities [letter]. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;59:e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-1003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Manghat, P, Sodi, R, Swaminathan. Phosphate homeostasis and disorders. Ann Clin Biochem 2014;51:631–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563214521399.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Bureau International des Pois et Mesures. Evaluation of measurement data – guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology 100; 2008. http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html [Accessed May 2023].Search in Google Scholar
11. International Organization for Standardization. Medical laboratories – practical guidance for the estimation of measurement uncertainty. ISO/TS 20914; 2019.Search in Google Scholar
12. Farrance, I, Frenkel, R, Badrick, T. ISO/TS 20914:2019 – a critical commentary. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1182–90. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-1209.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Farrance, I, Badrick, T, Frenkel, R. Uncertainty in measurement: a review of the procedures for determining uncertainty in measurement and its use in deriving the biological variation of the estimated glomerular filtration rate. Pract Lab Med 2018;12:e00097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2018.e00097.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
14. Farrance, I, Frenkel, R. Uncertainty of measurement: a review of the rules for calculating uncertainty components through functional relationships. Clin Biochem Rev 2012;33:49–75.Search in Google Scholar
15. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Expression of measurement uncertainty in laboratory medicine; approved guideline. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2012. Document EP29-A, CLSI.Search in Google Scholar
16. Frenkel, RB, Farrance, I. Uncertainty in measurement: procedures for determining uncertainty with application to clinical laboratory calculations. Adv Clin Chem 2018;85:149–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acc.2018.02.003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Farrance, I, Frenkel, R. Uncertainty in measurement: a review of Monte Carlo simulation using Microsoft Excel for the calculation of uncertainties through functional relationships, including uncertainties in empirically derived constants. Clin Biochem Rev 2014;35:37–61.Search in Google Scholar
18. Coskun, A, Oosterhuis, WP. Statistical distributions commonly used in measurement uncertainty in laboratory medicine. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2020;30:010101. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2020.010101.Search in Google Scholar
19. Farrance, I, Frenkel, R. Measurement uncertainty and the importance of correlation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;59:7–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-1205.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Payne, RB. Renal tubular reabsorption of phosphate (TmP/GFR): indications and interpretation. Ann Clin Biochem 1998;35:201–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/000456329803500203.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Phelps, KR, Mason, DL. Parameters of phosphate homeostasis at normal and reduced GFR: theoretical considerations. Clin Nephrol 2015;83:167–76. https://doi.org/10.5414/cn108367.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Phelps, KR, Mason, DL, Stote, KS. Parameters of phosphate homeostasis at normal and reduced GFR: empiric observations. Clin Nephrol 2015;83:208–17. https://doi.org/10.5414/CN108380.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Phelps, KR, Mason, DL. Evidence that TmP/GFR can be estimated with the Walton-Bijvoet nomogram in chronic kidney disease. Clin Nephrol 2017;88:19–26. https://doi.org/10.5414/cn109069.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Stark, H, Eisenstein, B, Tieder, M, Rachmel, A, Alpert, G. Direct measurement of TmP/GFR; A simple and reliable parameter of renal phosphate handling. Nephron 1986;44:125–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000184216.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Brodehl, J, Krause, A, Hoyer, PF. Assessment of maximal tubular phosphate reabsorption: comparison of direct measurement with the nomogram of Bijvoet. Pediatr Nephrol 1988;2:183–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00862587.Search in Google Scholar
26. Alon, U, Hellerstein, S. Assessment and interpretation of tubular threshold for phosphate in infants and children. Pediatr Nephrol 1994;8:250–1. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00865491.Search in Google Scholar
27. Dubourg, LD, Aurelle, M, Chardon, L, Flammier, S, Lemoine, S, Baddhetta, J. Tubular phosphate handling: references from child to adulthood in the era of standardized creatinine. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2022;37:2150–6.10.1093/ndt/gfab331Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Chinoy, A, Padidela, R. Commentary on severe hypophosphatemia: the hidden truth. Clin Chem 2023;69:453–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvad025.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29. McKenna, MJ, Crowley, RK, Twomey, PJ, Kilbane, MT. Renal phosphate handling: independent effects of circulating FGF23, PTH, and calcium. JBMR Plus 2021;5:e10437. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm4.10437.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
30. von Londen, M, Aarts, BM, Sanders, JSF, Hillebrands, JL, Bakker, SJL, Navis, G, et al.. Tubular maximum phosphate reabsorption capacity in living kidney donors is independently associated with one-year recipient GFR. Am J Physiol Ren Physiol 2018;314:F196–202. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajprenal.00287.2017.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
31. Emmens, JE, de Borst, MH, Boorsma, EM, Damman, K, Navis, G, van Veldhuisrn, DJ, et al.. Assessment of proximal tubular function by tubular maximum phosphate reabsorption capacity in heart failure. CJASN 2022;17:228–39. https://doi.org/10.2215/cjn.03720321.Search in Google Scholar
32. Mohamed, F, Raal, FJ. Clinical case study. Severe hypophosphatemia: the hidden truth. Clin Chem 2023;69:450–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvad028.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
33. Sumner, JB. A method for the colorimetric determination of phosphorus. Science 1944;100:413–24. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.100.2601.413.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
34. Heyrovsky, A. A new method for the determination of inulin in plasma and urine. Clin Chim Acta 1956;1:470–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-8981(56)90020-1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
