Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,011

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Contrast Material-Induced Renal Failure in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus, Renal Insufficiency, or Both

Parfrey, Patrick S., Griffiths, Sheila M., Barrett, Brendan J., Paul, Michael D., Genge, Margot, Withers, John, Farid, Nadir, McManamon, Patrick J.·1989·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

To determine the risk of nephrotoxicity induced by the infusion of radiographic contrast material, we undertook a prospective study of consecutive patients undergoing radiographic procedures with intravascular contrast material. There were three study groups: patients with diabetes mellitus and normal renal function (n = 85), patients with preexisting renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level, greater than or equal to 150 mumol per liter) without diabetes (n = 101), and patients with both diabetes and renal insufficiency (n = 34). The control group consisted of patients undergoing CT scanning or abdominal imaging procedures without the infusion of contrast material who had diabetes mellitus (n = 59), preexisting renal insufficiency (n = 145), or both (n = 64). Clinically important acute renal failure (defined as an increase of greater than 50 percent in the serum creatinine level) attributable to the contrast material did not occur in nondiabetic patients with preexisting renal insufficiency or in diabetics with normal renal function. The incidence of clinically important contrast-induced renal failure among the diabetic patients with preexisting renal insufficiency was 8.8 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 1.9 to 23.7 percent), as compared with 1.6 percent for the controls. The incidence of acute renal insufficiency, more broadly defined as an increase of greater than 25 percent in the serum creatinine level after the infusion of contrast material, was 11.8 percent among all patients with preexisting renal insufficiency. After the exclusion of patients whose acute renal insufficiency could be attributed to other causes, the incidence was 7.0 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 3.2 to 12.8 percent), as compared with 1.5 percent in the control group. The risk of acute renal insufficiency attributable to the contrast material was therefore 5.5 percent, and the relative risk associated with the infusion of contrast material was 4.7. These rates were similar whether the osmolarity of the contrast material was high or low. We conclude that there is little risk of clinically important nephrotoxicity attributable to contrast material for patients with diabetes and normal renal function or for nondiabetic patients with preexisting renal insufficiency. The risk for those with both diabetes and preexisting renal insufficiency is about 9 percent, which is lower than previously reported.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm198901193200303

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,011

Metadata

Authors
Parfrey, P. S., Griffiths, S. M., Barrett, B. J., Paul, M. D., Genge, M., Withers, J., Farid, N., & McManamon, P. J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1989-01-19
Volume
320
Issue
3
Pages
143-149
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2316461329
Cited by
1,011
References
0
FWCI
19.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contrast Material-Induced Renal Failure in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus, Renal Insufficiency, or Both. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198901193200303
The paper
Parfrey, P. S., Griffiths, S. M., Barrett, B. J., Paul, M. D., Genge, M., Withers, J., Farid, N., & McManamon, P. J. (1989). Contrast Material-Induced Renal Failure in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus, Renal Insufficiency, or Both. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198901193200303

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.