This has been asked about indirectly in Question 11 from the first paper of 2008. A specific tabulated answer was called for in Question 25 from the second paper of 2007. The college answer to Question 25 is quite good; the table presented below is virtually identical, with the (perhaps unhelpful) addition of a few more obscure indices.
Intra-renal Failure |
Pre-renal failure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
ATN: |
|
Obviously, these are imperfect. Bagshaw Langenberg and Bellomo took them apart in a 2006 article, which concluded that "the scientific basis for the use of urinary biochemistry, indices, and microscopy in patients with septic ARF is weak". For one, they are easily confounded. Urine and serum osmolality indices are confounded by the use of dopamine, mannitol, and other diuretic agents. In general, though one is expected to know about these parameters, one is also expected to know about their limited utility.
As for words from authority, in his excellent Case Presentations in Chemical Pathology (Elsevier, 2013) Martin Crook presents this table of comparison on page 32:
Sanjay Subramanian, John A. Kellum, and Claudio Ronco "Oliguria" in: Critical Care Nephrology by Ronco, Bellomo and Kellum (2009) pp. 341
Crook, Martin. Case Presentations in Chemical Pathology. Elsevier, 2013.
Bagshaw, Sean M., Christoph Langenberg, and Rinaldo Bellomo. "Urinary biochemistry and microscopy in septic acute renal failure: a systematic review."American journal of kidney diseases 48.5 (2006): 695-705.