ArticlePorto biomedical journal
Conversion methods for modified Jaffe reaction assays of serum creatinine.
Article in Porto biomedical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Kidney in the Shadow of Cirrhosis: A Critical Review of Renal Failure.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Hepatorenal Syndrome-Novel Insights into Diagnostics and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModifications in Jaffe serum creatinine (sCr) assays question the suitability of the results for direct comparison.
methodssCr in adult in-patients was routinely measured either by SRM 909-standardized/noncompensated (method A) or isotope dilution mass spectrometry traceable/compensated method (reference). We converted values by method A into values by the reference using a formula provided by the manufacturer [Beckman Coulter (BC)] and traditional equating methods.
resultsThe BC-based conversion and linear equating resulted in underestimated sCr values, whereas equipercentile equating (EE) provided sCr with not significantly different distribution from the reference values. Proportions of patients with renal impairment did not differ between the reference and EE-converted sCr, as opposed to BC-recalculated values. Three percent of patients were classified into better renal function category when applying BC versus EE conversion.
conclusionsEquipercentile equation was a more accurate method for recalculation of sCr obtained from different Jaffe reaction assays than the linear equating or the BC linear formula. This study emphasizes the importance of the derivation sample specificity when applying research results to other real-world populations.
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.