Analytical performance comparisons of Modified Jaffe’s kinetic method and Enzymatic Trinder method for creatinine along with risk zone identification

Ravi Yadav (1) , Swati Sawant (2) , Sudarshan Shelke (3)
(1) Department of Biochemistry, Saraswati Medical College, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, India, India ,
(2) Department of Biochemistry, Dr. Vaishampayan Memorial Government Medical College, Solapur, Maharashtra, India, India ,
(3) Department of Biochemistry, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Karad, Maharashtra, India, India


The aim of this study is to compare analytical performance characteristics and also the patient results obtained from both Modified Jaffe’s kinetic and Enzymatic Trinder methods for serum creatinine so as to identify risk zone, if present, within the measurement range. Serum creatinine was measured on 206 left-over serum samples by Modified Jaffe’s kinetic and Enzymatic Trinder methods. For analytical performance comparisons, limit of detection(LOD), limit of quantification(LOQ), linearity, measuring range, intra and inter-assay CV were measured and compared. Statistical comparisons were done by Pearson‘s correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman tests. For Enzymatic Trinder and Modified Jaffe’s kinetic methods, LODs for serum creatinine were 0.01 & 0.02 mg/dl respectively; LOQs were 0.04 & 0.06 mg/dl respectively; linearity were upto 55 mg/dl & 30 mg/dl respectively. Correlation coefficient was high (r=0.99); intra and inter-assay CV measurements were acceptable. However, CV was lower for Enzymatic Trinder method. Bland-Altman plot showed that more than 95% data points lie within ± 1.96 SD limit of mean difference value (0.16). Average discrepancy (ie. bias) was 0.16 mg/dl across whole measurement range. However, at low concentrations, Modified Jaffe’s kinetic method gave higher values indicating systematic bias, thereby forming a “risk zone” in measurement range. Analytical performance requirements were met by both methods for routine use and good agreement exists between them. However, better performance was not shown by Modified Jaffe’s kinetic method at low concentrations. Such a “risk zone” needs to be identified by laboratories for accurate reporting of creatinine results.

Full text article

Generated from XML file


Abimanyi-Ochom, J., Mudiyanselage, S. B., Catchpool, M., Firipis, M., Dona, S. W. A., Watts, J. J. 2019. Strategies to reduce diagnostic errors: a systematic review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19(1).

Armbruster, D. A., Pry, T. 2008. Limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation. The Clinical Biochemist. Reviews, 29(1):49–52.

Armbruster, D. A., Tillman, M. D., Hubbs, L. M. 1994. Limit of detection (LOD)/limit of quantitation (LOQ): comparison of the empirical and the statistical methods exemplified with GC-MS assays of abused drugs. Clinical Chemistry, 40(7):1233– 1238.

Chung, H. J., Chun, S., Min, W. K. 2008. Creatinine Determination with Minimized Interference. J Lab Med Qual Assur, 30(2):229–231.

CLSI 2004. Evaluation of precision performance of quantitative measurement methods. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, USA, CLSI document EP05-A2, ISBN: 1- 56238-542-9.

CLSI 2005. User verification of performance for precision and trueness; approved guideline. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI. 2nd (ed). Wayne, PA, USA, CLSI document EP15-A2, ISBN: 1-56238-574-7.

Crocker, H., Shephard, M. D., White, G. H. 1988. Evaluation of an enzymatic method for determining creatinine in plasma. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 41(5):576–581.

Curt, M. J.-C., Voicu, P.-M., Fontaine, M., Dessein, A.-F., Porchet, N., Mention-Mulliez, K., Dobbelaere, D., Soto-Ares, G., Cheillan, D., Vamecq, J. 2015. Creatine biosynthesis and transport in health and disease. Biochimie, 119:146–165.

Fraser, C. G., Petersen, P. H. 1999. Analytical Performance Characteristics Should Be Judged against Objective Quality Specifications. Clinical Chemistry, 45(3):321–323.

Fraser, C. G., Petersen, P. H., Libeer, J.-C., Ricos, C. 1997. Proposals for Setting Generally Applicable Quality Goals Solely Based on Biology. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 34(1):8–12.

Gencheva, I. I., Ruseva, A. L. 2015. Effects Of Glucose and Bilirubin on The Kinetic Jaffe’s and The Enzymatic Methods for Serum Creatinine Assay. Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Research, 8(1):35– 39.

Giavarina, D. 2015. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochemia Medica, 25(2):141–151.

Greenberg, N., Roberts, W. L., Bachmann, L. M., Wright, E. C., Dalton, R. N., Zakowski, J. J., Miller, W. G. 2012. Specificity Characteristics of 7 Commercial Creatinine Measurement Procedures by Enzymatic and Jaffe Method Principles. Clinical Chemistry, 58(2):391–401.

Jennings, L., Deerlin, V. M. V., Gulley, M. L. 2009. Recommended Principles and Practices for Validating Clinical Molecular Pathology Tests. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 133(5):743– 755.

Küme, T., Sağlam, B., Ergon, C., Sisman, A. R. 2018. Evaluation and comparison of Abbott Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine methods: Could the old method meet the new requirements? Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 32(1): e22168.

Liu, W. S., Chung, Y. T., Yang, C. Y., Lin, C. C., Tsai, K. H., Yang, W. C., Chen, T. W., Lai, Y. T., Li, S. Y., Liu, T. Y. 2012. Serum Creatinine Determined by Jaffe, Enzymatic Method, and Isotope Dilution-Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry in Patients Under Hemodialysis. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 26(3):206–214.

Moore, J. F., Sharer, J. D. 2017. Methods for Quantitative Creatinine Determination. Current Protocols in Human Genetics, 93(1).

Nankivell, B. J. 2001. Abnormal Laboratory Results: Creatinine clearance and the assessment of renal function. Australian Prescriber, 24(1):15–17.

Owen, L. J., Keevil, B. G. 2007. Does Bilirubin Cause Interference in Roche Creatinine Methods? Clinical Chemistry, 53(2):370–371.

Ricós, C., Alvarez, V., et al. 1999. Current databases on biological variation: pros, cons and progress. Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 59(7):491–500.

Schmidt, R. L., Straseski, J. A., Raphael, K. L., Adams, A. H., Lehman, C. M. 2015. A Risk Assessment of the Jaffe vs Enzymatic Method for Creatinine Measurement in an Outpatient Population. PLOS ONE, 10(11): e0143205.

Schober, P., Boer, C., Schwarte, L. A. 2018. Correlation Coefficients. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5):1763–1768.

Srisawasdi, P., Chaichanajarernkul, U., Teerakanjana, N., Vanavanan, S., Kroll, M. H. 2010. Exogenous interferences with Jaffe creatinine assays: addition of sodium dodecyl sulfate to reagent eliminates bilirubin and total protein interference with Jaffe methods. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 24(3):123–133.


Ravi Yadav
Swati Sawant
Sudarshan Shelke (Primary Contact)
Ravi Yadav, Swati Sawant, & Sudarshan Shelke. (2021). Analytical performance comparisons of Modified Jaffe’s kinetic method and Enzymatic Trinder method for creatinine along with risk zone identification. International Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences, 12(2), 1194–1200. Retrieved from

Article Details

No Related Submission Found