ArticleClinical kidney journal2025
Comparison of radioactive and non-radioactive iothalamate and hippuran to assess kidney function.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Kidney function can be assessed by the measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) and effective renal plasma flow (ERPF) using the exogenous filtration markers Methods: We determined mGFR and ERPF in 220 participants by both the warm (gamma counting) and cold (liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry) methods on the same serum, urine and infusion solution samples. Agreement between the methods was evaluated using Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Accuracy criteria were that ≥80% of the warm and cold mGFR measurements were within ±30% (P Results: mGFR measurements showed a mean difference of 1.97% and no clinically relevant bias when comparing the warm and cold methods. mGFR was accurate with a P Conclusions: The cold method provides equivalent mGFR results compared with the warm method. The ERPF determined using the cold method is unaffected by radiochemical impurities that significantly affect the warm method.
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.