ArticleEuropean radiology2011
Significant differences when using MDRD for GFR estimation compared to radionuclide measured clearance.
Article in European radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parallel comparison of R.E.N.A.L., PADUA, and C-index scoring systems in predicting outcomes after partial nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Assessment of renal function before contrast media injection: right decisions based on inaccurate estimates.European radiology · 2019Article
- Quantitative estimation of renal function with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using a modified two-compartment model.PloS one · 2014Article
- Overestimation of carboplatin doses is avoided by radionuclide GFR measurement.British journal of cancer · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation, and compare with radionuclide GFR (rGFR) in a Radiology setting to assess renal function prior to contrast administration.
methodsFive hundred and sixteen retrospective rGFR studies from a mixed referral population were selected and the eGFR calculated. Regression and Bland-Altman analysis was performed. The percentage of rGFR and eGFR studies below 30 ml/min/1.73 m² and 60 ml/min/1.73 m² were calculated; these are important thresholds for classifying renal insufficiency.
resultsA significant correlation between eGFR and rGFR (R² = 0.62, p < 0.0001) and significant differences in the medians (p < 0.0001) were found. eGFR overestimated rGFR with a bias (mean difference) of 10.8 ml/min/1.73 m² over the whole range of rGFR. Studies with an rGFR of under 30 ml/min/1.73 m² had a mean bias of 4.6 ml/min/1.73 m² (difference range -5.9 to 26.3 ml/min/1.73 m²). The bias over the range 30 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m² was 13.2 ml/min/1.73 m² (difference range -16.8 to 88.3 ml/min/1.73 m²). In 25.4% of studies, eGFR was less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m² compared with 40.5% of rGFR studies.
conclusionsAwareness of the bias between eGFR and rGFR is important when assessing Radiology patients for risks of nephrotoxicity and Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis from contrast medium.
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.