ArticleClinical kidney journal2018
Renal biopsy: it is time for pragmatism and consensus.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Image-guided renal parenchymal biopsies- how we do it.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of percutaneous renal biopsy complications based on outcomes and indicators of the Nursing Outcomes Classification.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2021Article
- Associations between the concentrations of CD68, TGF-β1, renal injury index and prognosis in glomerular diseases.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Inflammatory leucocyte infiltrates are associated with recovery in biopsy-proven acute interstitial nephritis: a 20-year registry-based case series.Clinical kidney journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To obtain truly informed consent, we must be able to advise our patients accurately about the relative risk and benefit of any treatment plan. Percutaneous renal biopsy remains the gold standard investigation in the evaluation of intrinsic renal disease. There have been significant improvements in practice over the past decades with regards to percutaneous renal biopsy. Across centres, we appear now to have reached agreement on many aspects of this procedure, such as the need for blood pressure control, avoidance of coagulopathy, use of spring-loaded needles under direct imaging guidance and a need to monitor for complications. The authors from Rush University Medical Centre provide reassurance that renal biopsy in the modern era remains a safe procedure with a low rate of significant bleeding. There remain areas of divergence in practice that may have unintended and deleterious consequences: administration of desmopressin and discontinuation of aspirin, for example, both carry a risk of thrombosis. It is our opinion that it is time to reach consensus on our interpretation of the available data and to draw up guidelines to standardize our biopsy practice internationally.
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.