ArticleBMC nephrology2025
Diagnostic value of the urea-to-creatinine ratio for gastrointestinal bleeding source: influence of renal function.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating the Urea-to-Creatinine Ratio with Clinical Variables to Improve Etiological Discrimination in Acute Kidney Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Reconsidering the urea-to-creatinine ratio as a signal of muscle catabolism in patients with cirrhosis.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is frequent and clinically critical, especially in patients with renal dysfunction. Localization of the source is relevant for treatment and outcomes. The urea-to-creatinine ratio (UCR) has been proposed as a tool to differentiate between upper and lower GI bleeding. However, its diagnostic utility across varying degrees of renal impairment remains unclear.
methodsFrom January 2021 to October 2023, all patients with suspected GI bleeding who underwent endoscopy were retrospectively analyzed in a single center. Patients without confirmed bleeding were excluded. Patients were stratified by renal function: normal renal function, chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute kidney injury (AKI), and AKI with pre-existing CKD (acute-on-chronic). We assessed the discriminatory power of the UCR to distinguish upper from lower GI bleeding within each group.
resultsA total of 849 patients (mean age 66.9 ± 18.2 years) were included. Approximately two-thirds of the patients (n = 544; 64.1%) were male. CKD was present in 321 (37.8%) and AKI in 354 (41.7%) patients; 199 (56.2%) of those with AKI had pre-existing CKD. Upper GI bleeding occurred more frequently in patients with AKI (75.1%) and CKD (72.9%) than in those with normal renal function (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0003, respectively); both groups also required transfusions more frequently (p < 0.0001 for both). UCR values were significantly higher in upper vs. lower GI bleeding in patients with normal renal function (67.5 vs. 42.5; p < 0.0001), but this difference was reduced in CKD (49.3 vs. 41.0; p = 0.0103) and not significant in AKI (53.1 vs. 47.7; p = 0.09). The diagnostic performance of UCR was best in patients with normal renal function (AUROC 0.69) and markedly impaired in CKD (AUROC 0.56) and AKI (AUROC 0.54).
conclusionThe diagnostic value of UCR to localize GI bleeding depends strongly on renal function. While the UCR may help to identify the bleeding site in patients with normal kidney function, impaired renal function hampers the reliability of the UCR, especially in patients with AKI. As renal dysfunction is common in patients with GI bleeding, kidney function must be taken into account when interpreting UCR values.
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.