Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28372557›Full record

SynthesisBMC nephrology2017

Accuracy of cystatin C in prediction of acute kidney injury in children; serum or urine levels: which one works better? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Babak Nakhjavan-Shahraki, Mahmoud Yousefifard, Neamatollah Ataei, Masoud Baikpour, Fatemeh Ataei, Behnaz Bazargani, Arash Abbasi, Parisa Ghelichkhani, Faezeh Javidilarijani, Mostafa Hosseini

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Observational
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

10 authors.

Babak Nakhjavan-ShahrakiPediatric Chronic Kidney Disease Research Center, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mahmoud YousefifardPhysiology Research Center and Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Neamatollah AtaeiPediatric Chronic Kidney Disease Research Center, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Masoud BaikpourDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Fatemeh AtaeiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Taleghani Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Behnaz BazarganiPediatric Chronic Kidney Disease Research Center, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Arash AbbasiPediatric Chronic Kidney Disease Research Center, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Parisa GhelichkhaniDepartment of Intensive Care Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Faezeh JavidilarijaniDepartment of Pediatric Nephrology, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mostafa HosseiniDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Poursina Ave, Tehran, Iran. mhossein110@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is still an ongoing discussion on the prognostic value of cystatin C in assessment of kidney function. Accordingly, the present study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to provide evidence for the prognostic value of this biomarker for acute kidney injury (AKI) in children.

methodsAn extensive search was performed in electronic databases of Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane library and Scopus until the end of 2015. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% of confidence interval (95% CI) and the prognostic performance characteristics of cystatin C in prediction of AKI were assessed. Analyses were stratified based on the sample in which the level of cystatin C was measured (serum vs. urine).

resultsA total of 24 articles were included in the meta-analysis [1948 children (1302 non-AKI children and 645 AKI cases)]. Serum (SMD = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.68-1.24; p < 0.0001) and urine (SMD = 0.54; 95% CI:0.34-0.75; p < 0.0001) levels of cystatin C were significantly higher in children with AKI. Overall area under the curve of serum cystatin C and urine cystatin C in prediction of AKI were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.88), respectively. The best sensitivity (value = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.90) and specificity (value = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.48-0.73), were observed for the serum concentration of this protein and in the cut-off points between 0.4-1.0 mg/L.

conclusionThe findings of the present study showed that cystatin C has an acceptable prognostic value for prediction of AKI in children. Since the serum level of cystatin C rises within the first 24 h of admission in patients with AKI, this biomarker can be a suitable alternative for traditional diagnostic measures.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCystatin CHumansInfantSensitivity and SpecificityCystatin CAcute kidney injuryCystatin CPrognostic value

Identifiers

PMID28372557
PMCPMC5379579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.