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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Freiman, J. A., Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., & Kuebler, R. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197809282991304 · Cited by 1,628
Cited by
Scanlon, P. J., Faxon, D. P., Audet, A.-M., Carabello, B., Dehmer, G. J., Eagle, K. A., Legako, R. D., Leon, D. F., Murray, J. A., Nissen, S. E., et al. (1999) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00126-6 · Cited by 1,123
Contrast-induced nephropathy: Definition, epidemiology, and patients at risk
Mehran, R., & Nikolsky, E. (2006) · Kidney International · doi:10.1038/sj.ki.5000368 · Cited by 891
Contrast-media-induced nephrotoxicity: a consensus report
Morcos, S. K., Thomsen, H. S., & Webb, J. A. W. (1999) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s003300050894 · Cited by 527
Nephrotoxicity of high‐dose gadolinium compared with iodinated contrast
Prince, M. R., Arnoldus, C., & Frisoli, J. K. (1996) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.1880060129 · Cited by 398
Nephropathy induced by contrast media: pathogenesis, risk factors and preventive strategies
Goldenberg, I. (2005) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1040847 · Cited by 375
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
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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.