ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2017
Evaluation of Serological Indicators and Glomerular Filtration Rate Equations in Chinese Cancer Patients.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of Creatinine and Cystatin-Based Equations on Estimating Measured GFR in People with Hematological and Solid Cancers.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2025Article
- Clinical questions and good practice statements of clinical practice guidelines for management of kidney injury during anticancer drug therapy 2022.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2024Article
- Optimal Glomerular Filtration Rate Equations for Various Age Groups, Disease Conditions and Ethnicities in Asia: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The Ratio of NT-proBNP to CysCFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The performance of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) have been proved to vary according to the races of the target population. The eGFR equations have not been validated in the Chinese cancer population received chemotherapy. Meanwhile, serum cystatin C (CysC), urea, β2 microglobulin (β2-MG), and creatinine (SCr) were also evaluated in a cohort of Chinese cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 1000 cancer patients undergoing combination chemotherapy and 108 healthy volunteers were included in this study, and their renal function parameters were evaluated. The eGFR values were compared with reference GFR (rGFR) according to correlation, consistency, precision, and accuracy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the discriminating ability of the GFR equations and serological indicators of renal function. RESULTS (1) The equations contained CysC had the same varying tendency as rGFR in relation to the chemotherapeutic cycle. (2) eGFRscr+cysc and eGFRChinese scr+cysc worked better than the other equations, as indicated by a stronger correlation, less bias, improved precision, higher accuracy, and greater AUC. (3) CysC was more sensitive than the other serological indicators for identifying early renal injury. (4) Each parameter showed different characteristics in subgroups of Chinese cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS CysC was the most sensitive marker for early renal injury. Among the 8 most commonly used eGFR equations, the combination equation eGFRscr+cysc and eGFRChinese scr+cysc exhibited the best performance in the assessment of the renal function of Chinese cancer 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.