Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24113861›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology2013

Recommendations for provoked challenge urine testing.

Anne-Michelle Ruha

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. ACMT Recommends Against Use of Post-Chelator Challenge Urinary Metal Testing.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2017
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Porphyrinuria in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Review.Current medicinal chemistry · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Unnecessary Investigations in Environmental Medicine.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016
    Article
  6. Is Challenge Testing Valid for Assessing Body Metal Burden?Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.) · 2015
    Article
  7. Medical toxicology case presentations: to chelate or not to chelate, is that the question?Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2013
    Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anne-Michelle RuhaDepartment of Medical Toxicology, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Center for Toxicology and Pharmacology Education and Research, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA, michelle.ruha@bannerhealth.com.
University of Arizona · US

Funding

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND TOXICOLOGY: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH CONU61TS000117 · TS · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF MEDICAL TOXICOLOGY · PI KOSNETT, MICHAEL J · 2009 to 2013
$587k
ATSDR CDC HHS 1U61TS000117-04ATSDR CDC HHS U61 TS000117
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"Urine mobilization test," "challenge test," and "provoked urine test" are all terms used to describe the administration of a chelating agent to a person prior to collection of their urine to test for metals. There is no standard, validated challenge test. Despite recommendations by professional and government organizations against the use of provoked urine testing, the tests are still commonly used and recommended by some practitioners. Challenge testing utilizes a variety of chelating agents, including dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), dimercaptopropanesulfonate (DMPS), and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). The agents are given by a variety of routes of administration, doses used are inconsistent, and urine collection procedures vary. Additional problems with challenge tests include comparison of results to inappropriate reference ranges and creatinine correction of urine obtained within hours of chelator administration. Human volunteer studies demonstrate that mercury is detected in the urine of most people even in the absence of known exposure or chelator administration, and that urinary mercury excretion rises after administration of a chelator, regardless of exposure history and in an unpredictable fashion. Studies also demonstrate that challenge testing fails to reveal a "body burden" of mercury due to remote exposure. Chelating agents have been associated with adverse reactions. Current evidence does not support the use of DMPS, DMSA, or other chelation challenge tests for the diagnosis of metal toxicity. Since there are no established reference ranges for provoked urine samples in healthy subjects, no reliable evidence to support a diagnostic value for the tests, and potential harm, these tests should not be utilized.

Indexed as

Chelating AgentsHeavy Metal PoisoningBiomarkersCalibrationHumansMetals, HeavyPoisoningPractice Guidelines as TopicPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReference StandardsReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsUrinalysisBiomarkersChelating AgentsMetals, Heavy

Identifiers

PMID24113861
PMCPMC3846974
OpenAlexW2038092684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.