ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Assessment of renal function before contrast media injection: right decisions based on inaccurate estimates.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter to the editor.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesInformation on renal function required before specified radiological examinations with contrast agents is usually obtained through prediction equations using serum creatinine and anthropometric data. The aim of our study was to demonstrate discrepancy between poor prediction and good diagnostic accuracy of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimated by prediction equations.
methodsIn 50 patients, reference GFR was measured as plasma clearance of 51-chromium labeled ethylene-diamine-tetraacetic-acid (
resultsAs continuous variable, CG estimated individual values of GFR with large prediction error exceeding that of CC. As categorical variable, it classified the patient stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with medium diagnostic accuracy of 74% (CKD 3) and 62% (CKD 4). As binary variable, CG classified individual patient's GFR below 30 and 60 ml/min/1.73 m
conclusionsDespite large variance and poor prediction accuracy of individual GFR estimates, most of them correctly classified individual patient's GFR below specified level. Results of prediction equations thus should be used and reported exclusively as binary variables, while numerical values of GFR, if required, should be measured by more accurate radionuclide or laboratory methods. KEY POINTS: • Radiological guidelines on contrast media require estimation of glomerular filtration rate to assess kidney function before specified contrast examinations. • Estimated glomerular filtration rate is obtained through prediction equations using serum creatinine and anthropometric data as predictors. • While numerical estimates of glomerular filtration rate are inaccurate (their prediction accuracy is poor), diagnostic accuracy of binary estimates (ability to classify patient's glomerular filtration rate below or above a specified level) is very good.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30413953What 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.