Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 404

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contrast Nephrotoxicity: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Nonionic and an Ionic Radiographic Contrast Agent

Schwab, Steve J., Hlatky, Mark A., Pieper, Karen S., Davidson, Charles J., Morris, Kenneth G., Skelton, Thomas N., Bashore, Thomas M.·1989·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Experimental studies have suggested that nonionic contrast agents are less nephrotoxic than ionic contrast agents. To examine the relative nephrotoxicity of the two types of agents, we randomly assigned 443 patients to receive either iopamidol (nonionic) or diatrizoate (ionic) for cardiac catheterization. The patients were stratified into low-risk (n = 283) or high-risk (n = 160) groups, on the basis of the presence of diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or preexisting renal insufficiency (base-line serum creatinine level, greater than 133 mumol per liter). Serum and urine analyses were performed at base line and 24 and 48 hours after the infusion of contrast material. Nephrotoxicity was defined as an increase in the serum creatinine level within 48 hours of at least 44 mumol per liter. The median maximal rise in the serum creatinine level was 18 mumol per liter in both the diatrizoate group (n = 235) and the iopamidol group (n = 208) (P not significant; power to detect a difference greater than 9 mumol per liter, greater than 90 percent). Creatinine levels increased by at least 44 mumol per liter (0.5 mg per deciliter) in 10.2 percent of the patients receiving diatrizoate and 8.2 percent of the patients receiving iopamidol (P not significant). Among the high-risk patients, creatinine levels increased by at least 44 mumol per liter in 17 percent of the patients in the diatrizoate group, as compared with 15 percent of the patients in the iopamidol group (P not significant). We were unable to demonstrate a difference in the incidence of nephrotoxicity between patients receiving a non-ionic contrast agent and those receiving an ionic contrast agent.

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/nejm198901193200304

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 404

Metadata

Authors
Schwab, S. J., Hlatky, M. A., Pieper, K. S., Davidson, C. J., Morris, K. G., Skelton, T. N., & Bashore, T. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1989-01-19
Volume
320
Issue
3
Pages
149-153
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2319889543
Cited by
404
References
1
FWCI
23.70
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 Nephrotoxicity: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Nonionic and an Ionic Radiographic Contrast Agent. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198901193200304
The paper
Schwab, S. J., Hlatky, M. A., Pieper, K. S., Davidson, C. J., Morris, K. G., Skelton, T. N., & Bashore, T. M. (1989). Contrast Nephrotoxicity: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Nonionic and an Ionic Radiographic Contrast Agent. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198901193200304

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.