ArticleJournal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine2012
Chronic kidney disease identification in a high-risk urban population: does automated eGFR reporting make a difference?
Article in Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic kidney disease (CKD) treatment burden among low-income primary care patients.Chronic illness · 2015Article
- Chronic kidney disease care in the US safety net.Advances in chronic kidney disease · 2015Review
- Chronic kidney disease in an electronic health record problem list: quality of care, ESRD, and mortality.American journal of nephrology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Whether automated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting for patients is associated with improved provider recognition of chronic kidney disease (CKD), as measured by diagnostic coding of CKD in those with laboratory evidence of the disease, has not been explored in a poor, ethnically diverse, high-risk urban patient population. A retrospective cohort of 237 adult patients (≥ 20 years) with incident CKD (≥ 1 eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), followed by ≥ 2 eGFRs <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) ≥ 3 months apart)-pre- or post automated eGFR reporting-was identified within the San Francisco Department of Public Health Community Health Network (January 2005-July 2009). Patients were considered coded if any ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes for CKD (585.x), other kidney disease (580.x-581.x, 586.x), or diabetes (250.4) or hypertension (403.x, 404.x) CKD were present in the medical record within 6 months of incident CKD. Multivariable logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for CKD coding. We found that, pre-eGFR reporting, 42.5 % of incident CKD patients were coded for CKD. Female gender, increased age, and non-Black race were associated with lower serum creatinine and lower prevalence of coding but comparable eGFR. Prevalence of coding was not statistically significantly higher overall (49.6 %, P = 0.27) or in subgroups after the institution of automated eGFR reporting. However, gaps in coding by age and gender were narrowed post-eGFR, even after adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics: 47.9 % of those <65 and 30.3 % of those ≥ 65 were coded pre-eGFR, compared to 49.0 % and 52.0 % post-eGFR (OR = 0.43 and 1.16); similarly, 53.2 % of males and 25.4 % of females were coded pre-eGFR compared to 52.8 % and 44.0 % post-eGFR (OR 0.28 vs. 0.64). Blacks were more likely to be coded in the post-eGFR period: OR = 1.08 and 1.43 (P (interaction) > 0.05). Automated eGFR reporting may help improve CKD recognition, but it is not sufficient to resolve under identification of CKD by safety net providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.