Abstract Submission

Submission Period: January 31st, 2017

Language of Submission: All abstracts must be submitted in English with accurate grammar and spelling suitable for publication.

Preferences: only oral presentation”, „ only poster” or „oral or poster”.

Accepted Abstracts: An email message will be sent to the Abstract Submitter by March 15, 2017 with a report on the status of the abstract (accepted or declined). The Congress Scientific Committee will determine the format, day and time of presentation.

Co-Author(s): You will be given an opportunity to include co-authors on your submission and confirm that same are aware of the fact.

Conflict of interest: If any must be declared.

Corresponding author must be indicated, and her(his) email provided

Submission: by email only

No less than 250 words, no more than 400 words
Title in bold capital letter (max 130 characters font 12)
Authors in Bold: Underline presenting author

SEND BY EMAIL TO: bolo@gumed.edu.pl


Stewart Cameron1 and Guy Neild2
1King’s College London, 2University College London, UK

“Dipstick” testing for the detection of proteinuria is a central part of the evaluation of any patient, especially one with suspected renal disease, following the emphasis of Bright and many others on the primacy of proteinuria as a sign of renal damage. The introduction into clinical medicine of “dipstick” testing is often assumed to have followed the work of Albert Free (1913- 2000) his wife Helen and other colleagues in the Miles-Ames Research Laboratory, Elkhart, Indiana, USA (now part of Bayer) in the late 1950s and early 19660s. This exploited the pH change in dyes such as bromophenol blue in the presence of even trace amounts of albumin – the “protein error” of indicators, described by Sørensen in 1902. Free’s paper does acknowledge any previous work, but the idea of 2dipstic” testing, or “dry chemistry”, has a long history, going back at least 150 years, and perhaps even into the antiquity. In 19th century Europe, urine testing for protein at first largely involved such dangerous agents as Johann Florian Haller’s concentrated nitric acid “ring” test, which precluded use at the bedside, and above all was similarly restricted. Two of the early and productive advocates of paper reagent testing of urine to replace this awkward or even dangerous “wet” chemistry were George Oliver (1841-1915) a general practitioner and notable laboratory researcher who discovered adrenaline – of Harrogate, England; and Fritz Feigl (1891-1971) a biochemist from Vienna, Austria. Neither enjoy any reputation or even awareness today amongst nephrologists, except in the little-cited review of the historian Woswinkel in 1994.

In 1883-4 Oliver published first a paper in the Lancet, and then a short book on bed side urine testing: qualitative albumen and sugar (HK Lewis, London, 1884) describing the use of “test papers” for the detection of albumen and glucose, the two most commonly sought abnormal substances in the urine. After several preliminary assays using different reagents, his “albumen” test papers involved first acidifying the urine using citrate impregnated paper, then the use of leached out of the paper. His test papers were used extensively in the late 19th century England, but by the beginning of the 20th century interest died out for reason unknown, although the manufacture of his papers continued in Germany.

Obviously the principle of Oliver’s methodology differed from modern stick testing. This was not the case with Feigl, however, who in the 1920s and 1930s exploited Sorensen’s protein iundicator change, using tetrabromphenolphatelin to detect protein, one of many “Tüpefelreaktions” (spot tests) he described. Perhaps the subsequent ignorance of his work amongst clinicians despite his major reputation as a chemist arose, first because in 1938 being Jewish he emigrated from Austria to Brazil via appointments in Switzerland, Belgium and France,where he was put in a camp by the Nazis. Second because of all his prolific papers (over 400) were published in German-language chemical publication, rather than clinical Journals, although in a review of one of his several books in the Wiener Klin Wschr in 1931 indicated its potential importance.

Corresponding author:

Toggle Menu