ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2024
Point-of-care creatinine vs. central laboratory creatinine in the critically ill.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Frequent measurement of creatinine by point-of-care testing (POCT) may facilitate the earlier detection of acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients. However, no robust data exist to confirm its equivalence to central laboratory testing. We aimed to conduct a multicenter study to compare POCT with central laboratory creatinine (CrC) measurement. Design: Retrospective observational study, using hospital electronic medical records. Obtained paired point-of-care creatinine (CrP) from arterial blood gas machines and CrC. Setting: Four intensive care units in Queensland, Australia. Participants: Critically ill patients, where greater than 50% of POCT contained creatinine. Main outcome measures: Mean difference, bias, and limits of agreement between two methods, and biochemical confounders. Results: We studied 79,767 paired measurements in 19,118 patients, with a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation 3 score of 51. The mean CrC was 115.5 μmol/L (standard deviation: 100.2) compared to a CrP mean of 115 μmol/L (standard deviation: 100.7) (Pearson coefficient of 0.99). The mean difference between CrP and CrC was 0.49 μmol/L with 95% limits of agreement of -27 μmol/L and +28 μmol/L. Several biochemical variables were independently associated with the difference between tests (e.g., pH, potassium, lactate, glucose, and bilirubin), but their impact was small. Conclusion: In critically ill patients, measurement of creatinine by POCT yields clinically equivalent values to those obtained by central laboratory measurement and can be easily used for more frequent monitoring of kidney function in such patients. These findings open the door to the use of POCT for the earlier detection of acute kidney injury in critically ill 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.