Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30604227›Full record

ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2019

Usefulness of frailty evaluation for handling chronic kidney disease elderly patients: a review and original proposal.

Marco Ostuni, Carlos G Musso

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urology and nephrology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. [Frailty in renal diseases].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2021
    Review
  6. [Frailty in chronic kidney disease].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2021
    Review
  7. Frailty Screening in Chronic Kidney Disease: Current Perspectives.International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease · 2019
    Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marco OstuniPhysiology Department, Instituto Universitario del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Carlos G MussoPhysiology Department, Instituto Universitario del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. carlos.musso@hospitalitaliano.org.ar.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8666-1130
Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is interdependence between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ageing whereby CKD makes ageing more accelerated and pronounced, whereas ageing accelerates chronic nephropathy's progression. Frailty status catalyzes this spiral, with renal and systemic negative consequences, and this condition can currently be documented by applying already validated clinical scores (frailty phenotype) or physical test (gate speed). Although, nephroprevention strategies are similar between young adult and senior CKD patients, standard targets should be adequate to very old and frail elderly individuals. For this purpose, an original algorithm is here proposed to adjust the conventional nephroprevention strategies to the condition of CKD frail patient (more relaxed targets and tighter control), as well as to prescribe anti-frailty interventions to slow patient's functional decline, hospitalization and mortality.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAgedFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentHumansPhenotypeRenal Insufficiency, ChronicChronic kidney diseaseElderlyFrailtyNephroprevention

Identifiers

PMID30604227
OpenAlexW2907133323

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.