Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33306741›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Clinician perspectives on inpatient cystatin C utilization: A qualitative case study at Mayo Clinic.

James Roland Markos, Karen S Schaepe, Hilary R Teaford, Andrew D Rule, Kianoush B Kashani, John C Lieske, Erin F Barreto

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

James Roland MarkosMayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7042-0674
Karen S SchaepeRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.
Hilary R TeafordDepartment of Pharmacy, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.
Andrew D RuleDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.
Kianoush B KashaniDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2184-3683
John C LieskeDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0202-5944
Erin F BarretoRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · US

Funding

Beta-lactam individualization for critically ill patientsK23AI143882 · NIAID · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI BARRETO, ERIN FRAZEE · 2020 to 2024
$986k
NIAID NIH HHS K23 AI143882
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSerum creatinine (SCr) testing has been the mainstay of kidney function assessment for decades despite known limitations. Cystatin C (CysC) is an alternative biomarker that is generally less affected than SCr by pertinent non-renal factors in hospitalized patients, such as muscle mass. Despite its potential advantages, the adoption of CysC for inpatient care is not widespread. At one hospital with CysC testing, we demonstrated a significant rise in non-protocolized use over the last decade. This study uses qualitative methods to provide the first report of how clinicians understand, approach, and apply CysC testing in inpatient care.

methodsFifteen clinicians from various disciplines were interviewed about their experience with inpatient CysC testing. The semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using a phenomenological approach.

resultsKnowledge and confidence with CysC varied greatly. Clinicians reported first learning about the test from colleagues on consulting services or multidisciplinary teams. The majority believed CysC to provide a more accurate measure of kidney function than SCr. Common scenarios for CysC ordering included medication dosing, evaluation of acute kidney injury, and a thorough evaluation of kidney function in patients with risk factors for an altered SCr. Facilitators for ordering CysC included the availability of rapid results turnaround and the automated calculation of glomerular filtration rate based on the biomarker. Barriers to use included a lack of education about CysC, and the absence of an institutional protocol for use. DISCUSSION: Clinicians at our site decided independent of institutional guidance whether and when CysC added value to patient care. While the majority of study participants indicated advantages to rapid turnaround CysC testing, its use depended not just on the features of the specific case but on clinician familiarity and personal preference. Findings from this research can guide the implementation and expansion of CysC testing.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryAdultBiomarkersCreatinineCystatin CFemaleHospitalizationHospitalsHumansInpatientsKidney Function TestsMalePhysiciansQualitative ResearchBiomarkersCreatinineCST3 protein, humanCystatin C

Identifiers

PMID33306741
PMCPMC7732069
OpenAlexW3112879523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.