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

IntroductionN-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.MethodsA 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).ResultsSix 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.DiscussionNAC 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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