Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28167845›Full record

ReviewThe Clinical biochemist. Reviews2016

Acute Kidney Injury: Diagnostic Approaches and Controversies.

Konstantinos Makris, Loukia Spanou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Clinical biochemist. Reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. TheFrontiers in physiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. SepsisCalc: Integrating Clinical Calculators into Early Sepsis Prediction via Dynamic Temporal Graph Construction.KDD : proceedings. International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Reality of Evaluating Urine Spot Sodium and Urine Spot Sodium Creatinine Ratio in Furosemide Stress Test as a New Biomarker in Diagnosing Progressive AKI in Critically Ill.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Konstantinos MakrisClinical Biochemistry Department, KAT General Hospital, Kifissia, Athens, 14561, Greece.
Loukia SpanouClinical Biochemistry Department, KAT General Hospital, Kifissia, Athens, 14561, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a significant independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality. In the last ten years a large number of publications have highlighted the limitations of traditional approaches and the inadequacies of conventional biomarkers to diagnose and monitor renal insufficiency in the acute setting. A great effort was directed not only to the discovery and validation of new biomarkers aimed to detect AKI more accurately but also to standardise the definition of AKI. Despite the advances in both areas, biomarkers have not yet entered into routine clinical practice and the definition of this syndrome has many areas of uncertainty. This review will discuss the controversies in diagnosis and the potential of novel biomarkers to improve the definition of the syndrome.

Identifiers

PMID28167845
PMCPMC5242479

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.