ArticleClinical and experimental nephrology2009
Physicians make different decisions from nephrologists at serum creatinine 2.0 mg/dl.
Article in Clinical and experimental nephrology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A retrospective study on the current status of palliative care for patients who have chronic kidney failure in Japan: analysis of big data of the national insurance system.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- Multicenter epidemiological study to assess the population of CKD patients in Greece: results from the PRESTAR study.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is very important, but not clear, how physicians differ from nephrologists in treatment of renal insufficiency.
aimTo demonstrate differences in decision-making in treatment of renal insufficiency between physicians and nephrologists. DESIGN OF STUDY: Postal questionnaire.
settingAll physicians were graduates from one medical school and certified by the Japanese Society of Internal Medicine. Nephrologists were certified by the Society and the Japanese Society of Nephrology.
methodQuestionnaires were sent to 1,395 physicians and 385 nephrologists, including audit of serum creatinine concentration that would indicate referral to nephrologist, audit of continuation of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) for a case of renal insufficiency and mild hyperkalemia due to ACEI. Outputs were proportion that selected "serum creatinine 177 micromol/l (2.0 mg/dl) and over" as a referral point to the nephrologist, and proportion that chose "suspend ACEI" for a case of renal insufficiency and mild hyperkalemia due to ACEI.
resultsSix hundred and fourteen physicians replied (44%), and 111 certified in internal medicine were extracted from them. One hundred and eighty-six certified nephrologists replied (47%), and 114 certified in internal medicine were extracted. The proportion that chose "177 micromol/l" as a referral point to the nephrologist was 20% for physicians and 61% for nephrologists (P < 0.0001). An additional 17% of nephrologists recommended creatinine concentration below 177 micromol/l, whereas no such opinion was found among physicians. The proportion that chose "suspend ACEI" was 45% for physicians and 16% for nephrologists (P < 0.0001).
conclusionThere is significant difference between decisions made by physicians and nephrologists regarding treatment for patients with serum creatinine concentration of 177 micromol/l.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.