ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Clinical value of retinol binding protein, C-reactive protein and urine microalbumin in patients with chronic renal disease and ischemic cerebrovascular disease.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the diagnostic value of retinol binding protein (RBP), C-reactive protein (CRP) and urine microalbumin (UMA) for ischemic cerebrovascular disease (ICD) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
methodsIn this study, a total of 118 patients with CKD were selected and grouped into two groups: a group of patients who were complicated with ICD (CKD+ICD group, n=58), and a group of patients with CKD only (CKD group, n=60). Then, the patients in the CKD+ICD group were further classified into a good prognosis group and a bad prognosis group according their modified Rankin scale score at sixth months after discharge. Serum RBP, CRP and urine UMA levels were compared between the CKD group and CKD+ICD group. The diagnostic efficiency of serum RBP, CRP and urine UMA levels for ICD in patients with CKD was analyzed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to assess their prognostic performance. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk factors for poor prognosis of patients with CKD and ICD.
resultsThe levels of RBP, CRP, and UMA in the CKD+ICD group were significantly higher than those in the CKD group (all P<0.05). RBP demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for ICD in CKD patients, while CRP and UMA exhibited equivalent specificity, surpassing that of RBP. ROC curves showed that the areas under the curve (AUCs) of RBP and CRP were significantly greater than that of UMA (P<0.05) and there was no significant difference for AUCs between RBP and CRP. In addition, the levels of RBP, CRP and UMA in the poor prognosis group were significantly higher than those in the good prognosis group (all P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that RBP, CRP and UMA were independent risk factors for the poor prognosis of patients with CKD and ICD (Odds ratios =2.507, 3.677 and 1.919, respectively; all P<0.05).
conclusionThe assessment of RBP, CRP and UMA is recommended for diagnosis of ICD in CKD patients. RBP, CRP and UMA are independent risk factors for poor prognosis of CKD patients with ICD.
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.