Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18001477›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2007

A meta-analysis of N-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity.

Denise A Gonzales, Kelly J Norsworthy, Steven J Kern, Steve Banks, Pamela C Sieving, Robert A Star, Charles Natanson, Robert L Danner

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 160 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Acute kidney injury.BMJ clinical evidence · 2011
    Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. The effects of steroids during sepsis depend on dose and severity of illness: an updated meta-analysis.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2009
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. N-acetylcysteine effect on serum creatinine and cystatin C levels in CKD patients.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2008
    Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Denise A GonzalesCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. dgonzales@cc.nih.gov
Kelly J Norsworthy
Steven J Kern
Steve Banks
Pamela C Sieving
Robert A Star
Charles Natanson
Robert L Danner
National Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USNational Institutes of Health · USNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases · USUnited States National Library of Medicine · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeta-analyses of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for preventing contrast-induced nephrotoxicity (CIN) have led to disparate conclusions. Here we examine and attempt to resolve the heterogeneity evident among these trials.

methodsTwo reviewers independently extracted and graded the data. Limiting studies to randomized, controlled trials with adequate outcome data yielded 22 reports with 2746 patients.

resultsSignificant heterogeneity was detected among these trials (I2 = 37%; p = 0.04). Meta-regression analysis failed to identify significant sources of heterogeneity. A modified L'Abbé plot that substituted groupwise changes in serum creatinine for nephrotoxicity rates, followed by model-based, unsupervised clustering resolved trials into two distinct, significantly different (p < 0.0001) and homogeneous populations (I2 = 0 and p > 0.5, for both). Cluster 1 studies (n = 18; 2445 patients) showed no benefit (relative risk (RR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-1.12, p = 0.28), while cluster 2 studies (n = 4; 301 patients) indicated that NAC was highly beneficial (RR = 0.15; 95% CI 0.07-0.33, p < 0.0001). Benefit in cluster 2 was unexpectedly associated with NAC-induced decreases in creatinine from baseline (p = 0.07). Cluster 2 studies were relatively early, small and of lower quality compared with cluster 1 studies (p = 0.01 for the three factors combined). Dialysis use across all studies (five control, eight treatment; p = 0.42) did not suggest that NAC is beneficial.

conclusionThis meta-analysis does not support the efficacy of NAC to prevent CIN.

Indexed as

AcetylcysteineAgedCluster AnalysisContrast MediaCreatinineFemaleHumansKidney DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegression AnalysisRenal DialysisRisk FactorsAcetylcysteineContrast MediaCreatinine

Identifiers

PMID18001477
PMCPMC2200657
OpenAlexW2034310993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.