ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2017
Can duration of hemodialysis be estimated based on the on-arrival laboratory tests and clinical manifestations in methanol-poisoned patients?
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2017. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction the prognosis of the poisoned patients undergoing hemodialysis using machine learning algorithms.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Comparing the Clinical Characteristics, Laboratory Findings, and Outcomes between Epidemic and Episodic Methanol Poisoning Referrals; a Cross-sectional Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Atypical presentation of COVID-19; an observational retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Observational
- Evaluation of methanol content of illegal beverages using GC and an easier modified Chromotropic acid method; a cross sectional study.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2019Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Lachance formula and more readily available clinical or laboratory factors (other than serum methanol level) in prediction of the needed time for hemodialysis in methanol-poisoned patients.
methodsIn a retrospective study, all methanol-poisoned patients referred to us between March 2008 and March 2016 were enrolled. The patients' demographic characteristics, on-arrival vital signs, signs/symptoms, and laboratory tests were evaluated for factors that could prognosticate the dialysis duration.
resultsOf 72 patients enrolled, 54 underwent hemodialysis once (group 1) and 18 needed more than one session of hemodialysis (group 2). All were treated by ethanol, bicarbonate, and leucovorin. Lachance formula overestimated the patients in higher methanol levels and underestimated them in lower methanol levels. It properly predicted the needed time for hemodialysis when the methanol level was between 15 and 25 mg/dL. Groups 1 and 2 were different in terms of their ingested alcohol dose (P = 0.001), creatinine (P = 0.02), dyspnea on presentation (P = 0.002), and the place they had been dialyzed (P = 0.013). Dialysis duration significantly correlated with dyspnea on presentation (P = 0.028) and ingested alcohol dose (P = 0.02). After performance of logistic regression analysis, only creatinine was statistically significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.02). Median creatinine levels were 1.3 [1, 6] (0.8-2.7) and 1.4 [1.35, 2.1] (0.8-6.5) in the patients who were dialyzed once and twice, respectively.
conclusionsAs a conclusion, creatinine is possibly a readily available test that can predict the appropriate time needed for hemodialysis in methanol-poisoned patients.
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.