ArticleClinical and experimental nephrology2014
Comparison of kidney disease: improving global outcomes and acute kidney injury network criteria for assessing patients in intensive care units.
Article in Clinical and experimental nephrology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of acute kidney injury in the intensive care units of developed and developing countries.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- The Japanese clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury 2016.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2018Guideline
- Urine output is an early and strong predictor of acute kidney injury and associated mortality: a systematic literature review of 50 clinical studies.Annals of intensive care · 2024Review
- Post-treatment With Irisin Attenuates Acute Kidney Injury in Sepsis Mice Through Anti-FerroptosisFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Urinary Metabolome Analyses of Patients with Acute Kidney Injury Using Capillary Electrophoresis-Mass Spectrometry.Metabolites · 2021Article
- Article
- Cost and determinants of acute kidney injury after elective primary total joint arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2018Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guideline for acute kidney injury 2016.Journal of intensive care · 2018Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016).Journal of intensive care · 2018Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016).Acute medicine & surgery · 2018Article
- Incidence, timing and outcome of AKI in critically ill patients varies with the definition used and the addition of urine output criteria.BMC nephrology · 2017Review
- Acute Kidney Injury in Asia.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Review
- A comparison of RIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO, and Cys-C criteria for the definition of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.International urology and nephrology · 2016Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) group proposed to adopt the 48-h time window for the 0.3 mg/dL rise in serum creatinine (sCr) proposed by the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) group as a modification to the original risk, injury, failure, loss, and end-stage renal disease criteria, keeping the 7-day window for the 50 % increase in sCr from baseline. The present study evaluates the prevalence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and the accuracy of predicting mortality based on the KDIGO and AKIN criteria. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively studied a cohort of 2579 patients admitted to the intensive care unit of Nagoya University Hospital between 2005 and 2009.
resultsThe total AKI prevalence was higher according to the KDIGO than to the AKIN criteria (38.4 versus 29.5 %). In-hospital mortality rates were higher among 238 patients classified as non-AKI by the AKIN but AKI by the KDIGO criteria than among those classified as non-AKI by both criteria (7.1 versus 2.7 %). Survival curves generated using KDIGO significantly differed among all stages, but not between AKIN stages I and II. Multivariate analysis showed that KDIGO criteria were better in a statistical model than the AKIN criteria according to the Akaike information criterion. Harrell's C statistic was greater for the KDIGO than for the AKIN criteria.
conclusionsThe KDIGO criteria have improved sensitivity without compromising specificity for AKI and might predict mortality at least as well as the AKIN criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24282066What 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.