Trial reportPloS one2016
Utilizing Estimated Creatinine Excretion to Improve the Performance of Spot Urine Samples for the Determination of Proteinuria in Kidney Transplant Recipients.
Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-glomerular Tip Lesion Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis as a Negative Predictor in Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy.Current medical science · 2022Article
- Performance of 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion-estimating equations in relation to measured 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion in hospitalized hypertensive patients.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Differential Mobility Spectrometry-Mass Spectrometry (DMS-MS) in Radiation Biodosimetry: Rapid and High-Throughput Quantitation of Multiple Radiation Biomarkers in Nonhuman Primate Urine.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAgreement between spot and 24-hour urine protein measurements is poor in kidney transplant recipients. We investigated whether using formulae to estimate creatinine excretion rate (eCER), rather than assuming a standard creatinine excretion rate, would improve the estimation of proteinuria from spot urine samples in kidney transplant recipients.
methodsWe measured 24 hour urine protein and albumin and spot albumin:creatinine (ACR) and spot protein:creatinine (PCR) in 181 Kidney transplant recipients." We utilized 6 different published formulae (Fotheringham, CKD-EPI, Cockcroft-Gault, Walser, Goldwasser and Rule) to estimate eCER and from it calculated estimated albumin and protein excretion rate (eAER and ePER). Bias, precision and accuracy (within 15%, 30% and 50%) of ACR, PCR, eAER, ePER were compared to 24-hour urine protein and albumin.
resultsACR and PCR significantly underestimated 24-hour albumin and protein excretion (ACR Bias (IQR), -5.9 mg/day; p< 0.01; PCR Bias, (IQR), -35.2 mg/day; p<0.01). None of the formulae used to calculate eAER or ePER had a bias that was significantly different from the 24-hour collection (eAER and ePER bias: Fotheringham -0.3 and 7.2, CKD-EPI 0.3 and 13.5, Cockcroft-Gault -3.2 and -13.9, Walser -1.7 and 3.1, Goldwasser -1.3 and -0.5, Rule -0.6 and 4.2 mg/day respectively. The accuracy for ACR and PCR were lower (within 30% being 38% and 43% respectively) than the corresponding values estimated by utilizing eCER (for eAER 46% to 49% and ePER 46-54%).
conclusionUtilizing estimated creatinine excretion to calculate eAER and ePER improves the estimation of 24-hour albuminuria/proteinuria with spot urine samples in kidney transplant recipients.
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.