ArticleJournal of nephrology2014
The impact of pre-intervention rate of kidney function change on the assessment of CKD progression.
Article in Journal of nephrology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Defining and evaluating the Hawthorne effect in primary care, a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWithout a run-in phase, chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients enrolled in clinical trials may not be identified as having progressive disease. The aim of this analysis was to quantify the effects of a run-in phase on kidney function outcome in CKD patients enrolled in the Lipid Lowering and Onset of Renal Disease (LORD) trial.
methodsThe LORD trial assessed the effects of atorvastatin on the rate of change in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and included patients with serum creatinine 120 μmol/l. In this post hoc analysis, we assessed eGFR change during the 12-month period prior to enrolment, the 3-month run-in phase and the first 12-month period of the trial. Eighty of the original 132 patients (where retrospective data were available) were included. The rate of eGFR change during each period was compared.
resultsOverall kidney function decreased during the 12 months prior to enrolment by (mean, SD) 0.39 ± 0.98 ml/min/1.73 m(2)/month, improved during the 3-month run-in phase by 0.48 ± 2.90 ml/min/1.73 m(2)/month and decreased during the first 12 months of the trial by 0.15 ± 0.57 ml/min/1.73 m(2)/month. However, only 39 % of patients had declining eGFR during the 12 months prior, 19 % in the 3-month run-in and 42 % during the first 12-month study phase.
conclusionMost patients (>60 %) entering this clinical trial had stable or improving kidney function. Enrolment was associated with further improved kidney function, which may have been due to 'regression to the mean' or to the Hawthorne effect. Investigators should include a run-in period to establish the presence of eGFR decline to use as an inclusion criterion in clinical trials assessing this measure of CKD progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24504906What 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.