ArticleGlomerular diseases
Glomerular Hematuria for the Diagnosis of Glomerulonephritis.
Article in Glomerular diseases. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Reports on the performance of glomerular hematuria for the diagnosis of glomerulonephritis (GN) show heterogeneity in the results and used urological pathologies as controls. We hypothesized that identification of urinary acanthocytes (uACANTHO) and/or urinary red blood cell casts (uRBCCs) by comprehensive microscopic examination of the urinary sediment (uMICRO) can differentiate glomerular disease from non-glomerular renal pathology. Methods: Records of patients seen for consultation for acute kidney injury or proteinuria/hematuria who had specimens examined by uMICRO and a kidney biopsy performed within 2 weeks of uMICRO were extracted. We assessed the sensitivity (SENS), specificity (SPEC), and positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of uACANTHO and/or uRBCC for the diagnosis of biopsy-proven GN or for any glomerulopathy (GP). Results: Of 915 patients who completed uMICRO, 276 patients were included (mean age 53, 54% women). Median serum creatinine was 3.5 mg/dL. A total of 219 (79%) were categorized as GP, whereas 57 (21%) had non-GP diagnosis (e.g., tubular). Within the GP category, 114 (41%) had GN (e.g., IgA nephropathy, pauci-immune GN), whereas 105 (38%) had non-GN GP (e.g., podocytopathies). The SENS, SPEC, PPV, and NPV of uACANTHO for diagnosing GN were 68%, 86%, 78%, and 79%, respectively, whereas for GP SENS, SPEC, PPV, and NPV were 45%, 100%, 100%, and 32%, respectively. For GN, combining uACANTHO and/or uRBCC resulted in improvement of the SENS, SPEC, PPV, and NPV to 75%, 86%, 79%, and 83%, respectively. Either uACANTHO or uRBCC were found in 47/51 (92%) cases of crescentic/necrotizing GN. Conclusion: Identification of glomerular hematuria by uMICRO aids in the diagnosis of GN. Combining the identification of uACANTHO and uRBCC enhances the diagnostic yield of uMICRO for GN and offers good NPV for crescentic/necrotizing GN. uACANTHO are pathognomonic for GP.
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.