Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22972568›Full record

ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2013

The Janus faces of ESAs: caveat Chimaera!

Hugo Penny, Daniel Leckström, David Goldsmith

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urology and nephrology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 91% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hugo PennyKing's Health Partners AHSC, Wing Guy's Hospital, 6th Floor, Borough, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Daniel Leckström
David Goldsmith
Guy's Hospital · GBKings Health Partners · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a Janus quality as they look back whence they came in developing CKD and, in some cases, also look forwards to a potential kidney transplant with the attendant promise of improvement in quality and often quantity of life. Making the most of this often unique opportunity is key-maximising the chance that the engraftment starts as a success, and then later, preserving good kidney transplant function for as long as possible. Two recently published, independently conceived and executed studies are relevant to both aspects of this quest and thus to all kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Both trials also simultaneously stoke and quench the continuing, heated debates over target haemoglobin (Hb) levels, and the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), in CKD patients. One study--of acute, high-dose ESA administration--adds to the plethora of adverse safety signals swirling around the use of ESAs while surprisingly also showing renal function benefits at 12 months. The other study features chronic lower-dose ESA use in stable KTRs with anaemia and impaired renal function and not only purports to show a salutary effect on 2-year renal function outcomes (and thus reducing "return to dialysis" rates), but also rebuts the now widely accepted current notion that by chronic use of ESAs to target full Hb correction/higher Hb values in anaemic CKD patients, we are potentially causing harm.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationRenal Insufficiency, ChronicAnemiaGlomerular Filtration RateHematinicsHemoglobinsHumansPrognosisHematinicsHemoglobins

Identifiers

PMID22972568
OpenAlexW2045407167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.