ArticleAmerican journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025
Effect of truncating blood sampling in measuring glomerular filtration rate.
Article in American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Glomerular filtration rates (GFR's) are used to guide patient management. GFR's are based on radioactivity measurements of blood samples sampled at different times. We compared GFR computations from blood collected at 6 times to those collected at 2 timepoints. Thirty-seven GFR studies were performed on 25 patients. After intravenous administration of I-125 sodium iothalamate, 6 plasma samples were obtained at 5 min, 10 min, 15 min, 3 hr, 3.5 hr and 4 hr after injection, then counted in a well counter. Two different GFR calculation tools were applied to each set of 6 plasma counts (Methods 1 and 2), and a 2-sample algorithm (Method 3) computed GFR using only 3 hr and 4 hr data. Linear correlation between Method 1 and 2 GFR's was stronger than for Method 3 versus Methods 1 and 2 (r = 1.00 versus r = .91, P < .0001). Bland-Altman limits of agreement were larger (P < .0001) for Method 3 versus Methods 1 and 2 (-39.5 to +22.0 ml/min/1.73 m
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.