ArticleMathematical biosciences2016
The description of a method for accurately estimating creatinine clearance in acute kidney injury.
Article in Mathematical biosciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between creatinine clearance and mortality in Chinese patients with osteoporotic fractures: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- In creatinine kinetics, the glomerular filtration rate always moves the serum creatinine in the opposite direction.Physiological reports · 2021Article
- Early postoperative change in serum creatinine predicts acute kidney injury after cardiothoracic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2019Article
- Current state of the art for renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.Intensive care medicine · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious condition encountered in hospitalized patients. The severity of kidney injury is defined by the RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO criteria which attempt to establish the degree of renal impairment. The KDIGO guidelines state that the creatinine clearance should be measured whenever possible in AKI and that the serum creatinine concentration and creatinine clearance remain the best clinical indicators of renal function. Neither the RIFLE, AKIN, nor KDIGO criteria estimate actual creatinine clearance. Furthermore there are no accepted methods for accurately estimating creatinine clearance (K) in AKI. STUDY
designThe present study describes a unique method for estimating K in AKI using urine creatinine excretion over an established time interval (E), an estimate of creatinine production over the same time interval (P), and the estimated static glomerular filtration rate (sGFR), at time zero, utilizing the CKD-EPI formula. Using these variables estimated creatinine clearance (Ke)=E/P * sGFR. SETTING AND
participantsThe method was tested for validity using simulated patients where actual creatinine clearance (Ka) was compared to Ke in several patients, both male and female, and of various ages, body weights, and degrees of renal impairment. These measurements were made at several serum creatinine concentrations in an attempt to determine the accuracy of this method in the non-steady state. In addition E/P and Ke was calculated in hospitalized patients, with AKI, and seen in nephrology consultation by the author. In these patients the accuracy of the method was determined by looking at the following metrics; E/P>1, E/P<1, E=P in an attempt to predict progressive azotemia, recovering azotemia, or stabilization in the level of azotemia respectively. In addition it was determined whether Ke<10 ml/min agreed with Ka and whether patients with AKI on renal replacement therapy could safely terminate dialysis if Ke was greater than 5 ml/min. OUTCOMES AND
resultsIn the simulated patients there were 96 measurements in six different patients where Ka was compared to Ke. The estimated proportion of Ke within 30% of Ka was 0.907 with 95% exact binomial proportion confidence limits. The predictive accuracy of E/P in the study patients was also reported as a proportion and the associated 95% confidence limits: 0.848 (0.800, 0.896) for E/P<1; 0.939 (0.904, 0.974) for E/P>1 and 0.907 (0.841, 0.973) for 0.9<E/P<1.1. Ke<10 ml/min correlated very well with Ka, while Ke>5 ml/min accurately predicted the ability to terminate renal replacement therapy in AKI. LIMITATIONS: Include the need to measure urine volume accurately. Furthermore the precision of the method requires accurate estimates of sGFR, while a reasonable measure of P is crucial to estimating Ke.
conclusionsThe present study provides the practitioner with a new tool to estimate real time K in AKI with enough precision to predict the severity of the renal injury, including progression, stabilization, or improvement in azotemia. It is the author's belief that this simple method improves on RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO for estimating the degree of renal impairment in AKI and allows a more accurate estimate of K in AKI.
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.