ArticleScientific reports2025
Association of serum urea-to-creatinine and creatinine-to-cystatin C ratios with bone mineral density and osteoporosis: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Integrated Bioinformatics Analysis and Experimental Validation of the Role of Cellular Senescence in Osteoporosis.Calcified tissue international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sarcopenia and osteoporosis are two closely related degenerative diseases, and the urea-to-creatinine ratio (UCR) and creatinine-to-cystatin C ratio (CCR) have been reported as recognized muscle markers. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the relationship between muscle indicators (UCR and CCR) and bone mineral density (BMD), and osteoporosis prevalence. This cross-sectional study included 1,146 participants, of whom 363 were diagnosed with osteoporosis. Through regression and smooth curve fitting analysis, after adjusting for covariates, it was revealed that UCR was positively correlated with the risk of osteoporosis (OR = 1.020, 95% CI 1.011-1.029), and negatively correlated with BMD of lumbar spine (β = - 0.002, 95% CI - 0.002 to - 0.001), total hip (β = - 0.001, 95% CI - 0.002 to - 0.001), and femoral neck (β = - 0.001, 95% CI - 0.002 to - 0.001) (all P < 0.001). In contrast, CCR was negatively correlated with the prevalence of osteoporosis (OR = 0.839, 95% CI 0.762-0.923) and positively correlated with BMD at the lumbar spine (β = 0.016, 95% CI 0.010-0.022), total hip (β = 0.014, 95% CI 0.009-0.019), and femoral neck (β = 0.012, 95% CI 0.008-0.017) (all P < 0.001). In subgroup analyses, muscle markers were significantly associated with osteoporosis in women, normal-weight, and overweight patients. After categorizing UCR and CCR according to quartiles, their associations with osteoporosis risk and BMD remained significant. These results helped to understand the correlation between muscle markers (UCR and CCR) and BMD, providing new ideas for the evaluation and screening of osteoporosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.