ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Variable Creatinine Levels in Critical Care Patients: A Concerning Knowledge Gap.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical performance evaluation of different test systems on serum creatinine assay.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An accurate creatinine (Cr) estimate is pivotal for the assessment of renal function. Both patient- and practice-spawned factors palliate the test accuracy of serum creatinine (sCr) and can erratically represent actual kidney function. This study evaluated the caregivers' awareness of enzymatic serum creatinine (E-sCr) assay interfering in dopamine/dobutamine (DD)-infused patient samples and the frequency of such interference in a critical care setting. We conducted an sCr awareness survey among UT Southwestern physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. We then performed a cross-sectional E-sCr comparison against the kinetic Jaffe method using the DD-infused patient samples collected from central venous catheters (CVC), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lines, and the peripheral vein (PV). We retrospectively compared the longitudinal E-sCr results of the CVC/PICC draws with the corresponding blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels. The survey results show a significant lack of awareness among caregivers about the negative interference of DD infusions on E-sCr. Cross-sectional E-sCr assessment relative to the Jaffe method displayed a negative interference in 12% of CVC/PICC line samples (7/57 DD-infused patients) compared to none in the PV draws. A longitudinal assessment of E-sCr, BUN, and potassium (K) levels from CVC/PICC line samples further confirmed a spurious decrease for E-sCr in about 12/50 (24%) patients who did not show a concurrent BUN or K decrease. The results suggest that a direct PV sampling accompanied by clinical laboratory-directed proactive discussion/activities can foster awareness among caregivers and eschew the false E-sCr estimates in DD-infused patients.
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.