Talk:Urea-to-creatinine ratio

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Urea-to-creatinine ratio.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine: Nephrology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Nephrology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

On 21 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from BUN-to-creatinine ratio to urea-to-creatinine ratio. The result of the discussion was moved.

Shouldn't we clarify what species we're talking about?

Considering that people might check wikipedia regarding their pet's renal condition, shouldn't it be clarified that all values in this article are for humans only? Dr.queso (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious this is about humans. 1 in 1000 people will actually look at a BUN:Cr ratio and think... oh my dog has good kidney function. Lets be a little bit realistic here ok? --Smodtactical (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cimetidine

Do H2RA's (cimetidine specifically) decrease BUN:Cr? I always thought that H2RA's block cimetidine secretion into the tubule, so presumably they decrease BUN:Cr? -- Samir धर्म 02:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article touches on the subject.

Here is a ref (Ixkes MC, Koopman MG, van Acker BA, Weber JA, Arisz L. Cimetidine improves GFR-estimation by the Cockcroft and Gault formula. Clin Nephrol. 1997 Apr;47(4):229-36. PMID 9128789.) that suggests-- cimetidine increases the GFR. So, I'd think it would decrease the BUN/Cr ratio (at least transisently). AFAIK, based on the mass transfer theory I learned, the BUN/Cr ratio changes because the mass generation rates of creatinine and urea are different--I have to find a ref for that though.

My question at the moment is-- is the sensitivity for detecting GI bleeding due to bleeding induced hypovolemia? <--That is my theory... I'm looking for something in the literature to confirm that hunch. Nephron T|C 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urea:Creatinine ratio

To me, the term 'ratio' implies the units cancel one another out to create a dimensionless number. Shouldn't the urea to creatinine ratio therefore be 100:1 rather than 1:10 (with creatinine measured in micro moles/L and urea in millimoles/L)? Whyso (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Units changed yet again

The chart columns are very misleading. First of all, there are no indications whether the first or second column are in SI or US units. Skimming the history, This was changed a few months ago, only to be changed back to its current (erroneous) state.

BUN, to my understanding, is used more in the US. So I'll assume the first column is in US units, and the second is in SI.

If that is the case, then, the second column may be in error. Cr is measured in micro-mol/L, while Urea is measured in millimol/L. Therefore, Ur is three orders of magnitude larger than Cr. It makes no sense, then, to have Cr:Urea of 10:1 -- to have that is to imply that the person has a Cr of 10,000 micromol/L for a Urea of 1 millimol/L.

If there are no further comments to this, I will change it back again to agree to SI units.

Why should a high BUN/creat ratio have a high specificity for GI bleeding, while it should not be caused by protein digest? If it were solely a matter of prerenal renal insufficiency, all causes with comparable volume depletion would cause a similar BUN/creat ratio. Therefore I think the digestion of protein is a major contributor to the increased BUN/creat ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.65.112.140 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in Interpretation?

When BUN reabsorption is increased, then this results in a lower amount of BUN in the urine and a lower BUN:Cr ratio in the urine. Because reabsorbed BUN goes back into the blood stream, instead of being excreted in the urine together with creatinine. But the interpretation table says the opposite of this, i.e. BUN:Cr ratio is increased.

And when there is intrarenal injury and reabsorption of BUN back into the blood is reduced due to tubular damage, then this results in greater excretion of BUN in the urine. Which leads to a higher BUN:Cr ratio in the urine. But the interpretation table says the opposite of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.103.211 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clarification BUN:Cr and Urea:Cr

The BUN:Cr and Urea:Cr ratios are based upon serum (blood) values and not urine measurements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrisd5917 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that to the text. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BUN increase with upper GI bleed

Can we get some more clarification and research for this section? The argument that high protein intake won't lead to elevated BUN is false I believe. Also, if breakdown from upper GI bleed doesn't elevate BUN but its due to pre-renal state, then why doesn't lower GI bleed also elevate BUN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BUN-to-creatinine ratio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926050204/http://www.eboncall.org/CATs/1844.htm to http://www.eboncall.org/CATs/1844.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BUN-to-creatinine ratio → Urea-to-creatinine ratio – Hi guys, the name BUN-to-creatinine ratio is only used in the US. Even in Canada they say urea-to-creatinine ratio, let alone in Europe and the rest of the world. I think it would make sense to have the title that reflects the term used by the largest number of people worldwide. Thank you. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "blood urea nitrogen" is archaic/obsolete. See this reference:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK305/

Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. 3rd edition. Chapter 193. BUN and Creatinine by Adrian O. Hosten.

A quote: "Even though the test is now performed mostly on serum, the term BUN is still retained by convention."

So if 'urea-to-creatinine ratio' is more common than 'BUN-to-creatinine ratio' and 'BUN-to-creatinine' ratio is an arachaism, then I support the name change. Jaredroach (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

actually @Jaredroach, those have a lot to do with creatinine! if you eat too many of them, you can get diabetes, which can give you kidney disease, which can derail your creatinine :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving the page to a less-acronym-y, more globally recognizable name. "BUN" is incomprehensible to average, non-medical folks. At least with urea, people might make the connection to urine, and therefore guess that it has something to do with kidneys. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's a good point, excessive use of acronyms doesn't help the public, that's something that's very often overlooked Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WP:GLOBAL, and per the argument that BUN is obsolescent anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.