ArticleNephrology (Carlton, Vic.)2022
Estimating baseline kidney function in hospitalized adults with acute kidney injury.
Article in Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between enteral carboxymethyllysine intake and daily glycemic variability in critically ill adults: A retrospective cohort study.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2025Article
- Observational
- Severe intensive care unit-acquired hypernatraemia: Prevalence, risk factors, trajectory, management, and outcome.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Point-of-care creatinine vs. central laboratory creatinine in the critically ill.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Estimating baseline kidney function in hospitalized adults with acute kidney injury.Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.) · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimBaseline serum creatinine values are required to diagnose acute kidney injury but are often unavailable. We evaluated four conventional equations to estimate creatinine. We then developed and validated a new equation corrected by age and gender.
methodsWe retrospectively examined adults who, at first hospital admission, had available baseline creatinine data and developed acute kidney injury ≥24 h after admission. We split the study population: 50% (derivation) to develop a new linear equation and 50% (validation) to compare against conventional equations for bias, precision, and accuracy. We stratified analyses by age and gender.
resultsWe studied 3139 hospitalized adults (58% male, median age 71). Conventional equations performed poorly in bias and accuracy in patients aged <60 or ≥75 (68% of the study population). The new linear equation had less bias and more accuracy. There were no clinically significant differences in precision. The median (95% confidence interval) difference in creatinine values estimated via the new equation minus measured baselines was 0.9 (-3.0, 5.9) and -0.5 (-7.0, 3.7) μmol/L in female patients 18-60 and 75-100, and -1.5 (-4.2, 2.2) and -7.8 (-12.7, -3.6) μmol/L in male patients 18-60 and 75-100, respectively. The new equation improved reclassification of KDIGO AKI stages compared to the MDRD II equation by 5.0%.
conclusionEquations adjusted for age and gender are less biased and more accurate than unadjusted equations. Our new equation performed well in terms of bias, precision, accuracy, and reclassification.
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.