ArticleClinical kidney journal2016
Haematological malignancies and acute kidney injury requiring nephrology consultation: challenging the worst of the worst.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- In-hospital electronic monitoring system approaches to epidemiologic investigation and predictive modeling of contrast-induced acute kidney injury.Renal failure · 2026Article
- Risk factors for renal impairment in patients with hematological cancer receiving antineoplastic treatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
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
backgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) often complicates the course of haematological malignancies (HMs) and confers a worse prognosis. The majority of these patients are managed by the attending physician, yet, a small group, mostly coincident with the worst presentation and outcomes, requires nephrology consultation, challenging the clinician with ethical issues regarding the decision to initiate or forgo renal support therapy. The purpose of this work is to identify the prognostic determinants for in-hospital mortality in this population.
methodsA retrospective, observational chart review was undertaken at a single tertiary referral oncological centre. We reviewed the medical records of in-hospital patients with AKI and HM between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2014 who met the criteria for RIFLE (Risk, Injury, and Failure; and Loss; and End-stage kidney disease) classification of I or higher and were followed by a nephrologist.
resultsThree hundred and forty-five patients were included in the study. Predictors of in-hospital death in patients with HM and AKI were septic shock [odds ratio (OR) 4.290 (95% CI 2.058-8.943)], invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) [OR 4.305 (95% CI 2.075-8.928)] and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) [OR 2.232 (95% CI 1.260-3.953)]. The combination of each risk factor was used to estimate the probability of dying. Patients with all three risk factors had a risk of death of 86%.
conclusionsSeptic shock, IMV and allogeneic SCT were identified as independent predictors of death in patients with HM and AKI, with only a small chance of survival if all three were present. Depending on the combination of risk factors, the indication for aggressive life support therapies, such as RST, might be questionable.
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.