ArticleKidney international reports2022
Population-Based Limits of Urine Creatinine Excretion.
Article in Kidney international reports, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human biomonitoring of mycotoxins: key challenges and future directions.Mycotoxin research · 2025Review
- Kidney Tubular Biomarkers in Type 1 Diabetes - Longitudinal Analysis of 2 Cohorts.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- The Diagnostic Value of the Random Urine Potassium‒Creatinine Ratio to the Synchronous Serum Potassium Concentration Squared for Renal Potassium Loss in Hypokalemia Patients.International journal of endocrinology · 2025Article
- Residual Kidney Function in Hemodialysis: Its Importance and Contribution to Improved Patient Outcomes.Toxins · 2024Review
- Rationale and Design of the Diet, CKD, and Apolipoprotein L1 Study in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.Kidney international reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The validity of a timed urine collection is typically judged by measurement of urine creatinine excretion, but prevailing limits may be unreliable. We sought to empirically derive population-based limits of excretion for evaluating the validity of a timed urine collection. Methods: Covariate and 24-hour urine data were obtained from 3582 participants in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study, 814 participants in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study, 1010 participants in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS), and 8536 participants in the Prevention of Renal Vascular End Stage Disease (PREVEND) study. Weight, height, age, sex, and serum creatinine concentrations were evaluated as potential predictors of urine creatinine excretion using Akaike Information Criteria, R-squared values, and deviance. Bias and precision of the fitted models were assessed by analyses of residuals. Agreement between 24-hour creatinine clearance and Results: A best-fitting model to predict 24-hour urine creatinine excretion among the 9199 discovery cohort members included sex-specific terms for weight, height, and age (R-squared = 0.328). This model had a median bias of +4.3 mg creatinine/day (95% confidence interval -5.6, +13.3 mg/day) in 4599 validation cohort members, and 82% of observed values were within 30% of predicted model. Serum creatinine concentrations only marginally improved model precision but reduced bias in persons with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Conclusion: The limits of urine creatinine excretion derived here represent the most valid and representative data for appraising the adequacy of a timed urine collection.
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.