MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110169748 · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2020.11.018

A Systematic Review of the Effect of N-Acetylcysteine on Serum Creatinine and Cystatin C Measurements

2020· review· en· W3110169748 on OpenAlexafffund
Johnny W. Huang, Brianna Lahey, Owen Clarkin, Jennifer Kong, Edward G. Clark, Salmaan Kanji, Christopher R. McCudden, Ayub Akbari, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Wael Shabana, Swapnil Hiremath

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International Reports · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa HospitalOttawa Hospital Research InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCystatin CMedicineAcetylcysteineCreatinineRenal functionKidney diseaseAcute kidney injuryacetaminophen overdoseKidneyAcetaminophenInternal medicineUrologyAntioxidantPharmacologyBiochemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is an antioxidant that can regenerate glutathione and is primarily used for acetaminophen overdose. NAC has been tested and used for preventing iatrogenic acute kidney injury or slowing the progression of chronic kidney disease, with mixed results. There are conflicting reports that NAC may artificially lower measured serum creatinine without improving kidney function, potentially by assay interference. Given these mixed results, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine whether there is an effect of NAC on kidney function as measured with serum creatinine and cystatin C. Methods A literature search was conducted to identify all study types reporting a change in serum creatinine after NAC administration. The primary outcome was change in serum creatinine after NAC administration. The secondary outcome was a change in cystatin C after NAC administration. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess effect of creatinine assay (Jaffe vs. non-Jaffe and intravenous vs. oral). Results Six studies with a total of 199 participants were eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis. There was a small but significant decrease in serum creatinine after NAC administration overall (weighted mean difference [WMD], −2.80 μmol/L [95% confidence interval {CI} −5.6 to 0.0]; P = 0.05). This was greater with non-Jaffe methods (WMD, −3.24 μmol/L [95% CI −6.29 to −0.28]; P = 0.04) than Jaffe (WMD, −0.51 μmol/L [95% CI −7.56 to 6.53]; P = 0.89) and in particular with intravenous (WMD, −31.10 μmol/L [95% CI −58.37 to −3.83]; P = 0.03) compared with oral NAC (WMD, −2.5 μmol/L [95% CI −5.32 to 0.32]; P = 0.08). There was no change in cystatin C after NAC administration. Discussion NAC causes a decrease in serum creatinine but not in cystatin C, suggesting analytic interference rather than an effect on kidney function. Supporting this, the effect was greater with non-Jaffe methods of creatinine estimation. Future studies of NAC should use the Jaffe method of creatinine estimation when kidney outcomes are being reported. Even in clinical settings, the use of an enzymatic assay when high doses of intravenous NAC are being used may result in underdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of acute kidney injury.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.017
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney International ReportsSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207