Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28963291›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Systematic review of prognostic prediction models for acute kidney injury (AKI) in general hospital populations.

Luke Eliot Hodgson, Alexander Sarnowski, Paul J Roderick, Borislav D Dimitrov, Richard M Venn, Lui G Forni

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Clinical prediction models for acute kidney injury.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The effect of perioperative AKI on surgical outcomes.Anesthesiology and perioperative science · 2023
    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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Luke Eliot HodgsonAcademic Unit of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK.
Alexander SarnowskiIntensive Care Department, The Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK.
Paul J RoderickAcademic Unit of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK.
Borislav D DimitrovAcademic Unit of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK.
Richard M VennAnaesthetics Department, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital, Worthing, UK.
Lui G ForniIntensive Care Department, The Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK.
Royal Surrey County Hospital · GBSouthampton General Hospital · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBWorthing Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCritically appraise prediction models for hospital-acquired acute kidney injury (HA-AKI) in general populations.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and Web of Science until November 2016. ELIGIBILITY: Studies describing development of a multivariable model for predicting HA-AKI in non-specialised adult hospital populations. Published guidance followed for data extraction reporting and appraisal.

results14 046 references were screened. Of 53 HA-AKI prediction models, 11 met inclusion criteria (general medicine and/or surgery populations, 474 478 patient episodes) and five externally validated. The most common predictors were age (n=9 models), diabetes (5), admission serum creatinine (SCr) (5), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (4), drugs (diuretics (4) and/or ACE inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (3)), bicarbonate and heart failure (4 models each). Heterogeneity was identified for outcome definition. Deficiencies in reporting included handling of predictors, missing data and sample size. Admission SCr was frequently taken to represent baseline renal function. Most models were considered at high risk of bias. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to predict HA-AKI ranged 0.71-0.80 in derivation (reported in 8/11 studies), 0.66-0.80 for internal validation studies (n=7) and 0.65-0.71 in five external validations. For calibration, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test or a calibration plot was provided in 4/11 derivations, 3/11 internal and 3/5 external validations. A minority of the models allow easy bedside calculation and potential electronic automation. No impact analysis studies were found.

conclusionsAKI prediction models may help address shortcomings in risk assessment; however, in general hospital populations, few have external validation. Similar predictors reflect an elderly demographic with chronic comorbidities. Reporting deficiencies mirrors prediction research more broadly, with handling of SCr (baseline function and use as a predictor) a concern. Future research should focus on validation, exploration of electronic linkage and impact analysis. The latter could combine a prediction model with AKI alerting to address prevention and early recognition of evolving AKI.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAcute Kidney InjuryCreatinineHospitalizationHospitals, GeneralHumansPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCreatinineacute kidney injuryclinical prediction modelssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28963291
PMCPMC5623486
OpenAlexW2759850233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.