ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2020
Blood urea nitrogen/creatinine change ratio as a delta check method for dialysis specimens.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2020. 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.
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The delta check is used in clinical laboratories to detect specimen mislabeling or misidentification. However, test results can differ markedly pre-versus post-dialysis, and the delta check in fact typically has little value, as well as being labor intensive. We propose the "blood urea nitrogen/creatinine change ratio" (BCCR) as a new delta check method for dialysis cases. A total of 1,116 specimens with same-day pre- and post-dialysis test results were analyzed. Also, the performance of the BCCR was evaluated by simulating specimen mix-up. Among the 1,116 specimens, the median BCCR was 0.80 and the 2.5th, 25th, 75th, and 97.5th percentiles were 0.62, 0.74. 0.84, and 0.93, respectively. In the simulated misidentification dataset, the median BCCR was 0.79 and the 2.5th, 25th, 75th, and 97.5th percentiles were 0.34, 0.61, 1.02, and 1.77, respectively. When the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile values of the BCCR were set as the upper and lower limits, the delta check detected 61.0% of the simulated misidentified specimens. In summary, the BCCR enables detection of changes in important measures and could reduce the rate of false-positives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32782683PMC7414509What 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.