ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2017
Limited comparability of creatinine assays in patients with liver cirrhosis and their impact on the MELD score.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creatinine assay interferences compromises MELD accuracy and may bias liver allocation.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Functional Liver Imaging Score to Predict Clinically Significant PHLF for Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Resection.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Article
- Comparing Jaffe and Enzymatic Methods for Creatinine Measurement at Various Icterus Levels and Their Impacts on Liver Transplant Allocation.International journal of analytical chemistry · 2023Article
- The Addition of C-Reactive Protein and von Willebrand Factor to Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium Improves Prediction of Waitlist Mortality.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2021Article
- Experiences from six years of quality assured Model of End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) diagnostics.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimPatients with end-stage liver disease require valid estimations of mortality for organ allocation and risk stratification. The model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score is used for this purpose in most countries and incorporates bilirubin, International Normalized ratio, and creatinine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparability of creatinine results from different routine assays in the serum samples of patients with liver cirrhosis.
methodsResidual material from 60 serum samples was available from patients in different stages of liver cirrhosis. Four centers participated; each center analyzed the samples with Jaffé-based and enzymatic routine assays in parallel. In addition, an accredited calibration laboratory certified the panel of samples by an internationally accepted reference measurement procedure (RMP) based on isotope dilution mass spectrometry (ID-MS). This method served as the independent reference.
resultsAll routine methods displayed a high correlation to the RMP (r ≥0.937, p<0.001). Two enzymatic and two Jaffé-based methods provided results that were all within a ±20% range of the RMP. The other methods showed deviations >20% in up to 27% of the samples. The enzymatic methods were systematically lower, whereas the Jaffé-based methods were systematically higher (p<0.001). The resulting MELD scores differed from 0 to 4 points.
conclusionsThere are systematic deviations from the RMP. Jaffé-based assays gave higher results, whereas the enzymatic-based assays gave lower results compared to the results of the RMP. The comparability of results is limited and could be disadvantageous to patients listed for liver transplantation.
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.