I checked the AMBOSS article. OP is right in that it does mention that hyperparathyroidism can cause Type I RTA particularly in the context of nephrocalcinosis. The article doesn’t mention hypercalcemia occuring as a result of Type I RTA but it does mention hypercalciuria. There’s a relation between Type II RTA and vitamin d deficiency in the context of fanconi syndrome. would lead towards support but just get rid of the text in the extra section
Seems very specific to be this level of incorrect…
Yeah. It seems like it may have come from sketchy since I don’t see any QIDs referenced in the tags. I was thinking at first it could just be a typo with an extra I but type II rta affects the proximal tubule so I really have no idea. But sketchy does make mistakes. I’d be inclined to go with op’s suggestion based on what I’ve learned
Just checked and this is straight from Sketchy field - anyone have access to see if their is new/updated video?
@herstein.jacob just checked. sketchy still says “type II”
Couldn’t find anything in UTD that directly connect hyperPTH and RTA
Not an accepted source, but still a solid one - Merck Manuals also says that secondary hyperPTH does cause type II RTA
So are we leaving the card as it is?
I think so. Absence of something on AMBOSS is not enough in my eyes
Having read the replies, I get why this card was kept as is. However, wouldn’t it be appropriate to mention type I RTA either as an addition to this card or as a separate one?
Merck was the only source I could find that includes secondary hyperparathyroidism on the list — but it seems like it’s only in the context of chronic hypocalcemia (e.g., due to vitamin D deficiency) and not from PTH excess per se.
I couldn’t find a direct mechanism linking PTH elevation to causing PCT bicarb loss, which makes me think the current version of the card may do more harm than good in terms of confusing students.