ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2014
Should screening of renal markers be recommended in a working population?
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt is debated whether the general population should be screened for kidney disease. This study evaluated whether screening of albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in a working population should be recommended to detect subjects with chronic kidney disease.
methodsThe unreferred renal insufficiency study is a cross-sectional study in 1,398 workers aged 17-65. Markers of cardiovascular and renal disease were measured. Cardiovascular risk (CVR) was defined by hypertension (n = 416), diabetes (n = 45), dyslipidemia (n = 159) and/or history of a cardiovascular event (n = 10).
resultsIn our population, 5 % of the workers had microalbuminuria, 0.5 % had macroalbuminuria and <0.1 % had eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). All workers with an eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and/or macroalbuminuria (8/8) had at least one CVR factor, whereas this was the case in only half of workers with microalbuminuria (36/73, p = 0.007). In workers without CVR factors, the presence of microalbuminuria was associated with low body mass index (BMI, p < 0.001) or physiochemical exposure risk (p < 0.001).
conclusionsScreening of renal markers in a working population, identified only a few subjects with an eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) or macroalbuminuria. Although microalbuminuria was more prevalent, it might not necessarily indicate kidney disease, as it may have a completely different meanings depending of the phenotype of the screened subjects. Besides underlying CVR factors, microalbuminuria was also associated with low BMI in absence of any risk factor, suggesting presence of benign postural proteinuria. In addition, microalbuminuria also seemed to be related to physicochemical exposure. In view of the impossibility to further analyze this finding in the present study, the meaning of this observation needs to be further investigated.
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.