ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Diagnostic accuracy of the blood urea-to-creatinine ratio for differentiating AKI etiologies and dialysis prediction in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe blood Urea-to-Creatinine Ratio (UCR) is one of the most readily available markers for differentiating the etiology of acute kidney injury and has long been emphasized in textbooks and review articles. Nevertheless, its diagnostic accuracy has not yet been systematically evaluated.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through May 2025. The diagnostic performance of the UCR for (1) Pre-renal azotemia/transient AKI and (2) Non-dialysis-requiring AKI was extracted and evaluated. A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis was conducted using a bivariate model. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of fractional excretion of sodium with UCR to predict pre-renal azotemia/transient AKI.
resultsWe identified 9 studies comprising 10 independent cohorts with a total of 16,412 participants. For pre-renal azotemia/transient AKI, the UCR demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI 0.43-0.91) and specificity of 0.52 (95% CI 0.21-0.82), with an AUC of 0.69. For non-dialysis-requiring AKI, the UCR showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.49 (95% CI 0.44-0.55) and specificity of 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.77), with an AUC of 0.63. Substantial heterogeneity was observed, and the certainty of evidence was rated low to very low.
conclusionsBased on currently available evidence, despite its long-standing role in textbooks and review articles, UCR demonstrates limited diagnostic accuracy for differentiating AKI etiologies and identifying non-dialysis-requiring AKI. Its clinical utility should be interpreted with caution given the substantial heterogeneity and low certainty of evidence, and it may be more appropriate to use UCR in combination with, or in place of, other traditional indices or novel biomarkers.
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.