Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31071186›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Predicting kidney failure from longitudinal kidney function trajectory: A comparison of models.

Jan A J G van den Brand, Tjeerd M H Dijkstra, Jack Wetzels, Bénédicte Stengel, Marie Metzger, Peter J Blankestijn, Hiddo J Lambers Heerspink, Ron T Gansevoort

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Derivation and Validation of a Machine Learning Model for the Prevention of Unplanned Dialysis.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Jan A J G van den BrandDepartment of nephrology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1685-9886
Tjeerd M H DijkstraMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Tübingen, Germany, Center for Integrative Neuroscience, University Tübingen, Tuübingen, Germany.
Jack WetzelsDepartment of nephrology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Bénédicte StengelCESP, Inserm, Univ Paris-Sud, UVSQ, Univ Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.
Marie MetzgerCESP, Inserm, Univ Paris-Sud, UVSQ, Univ Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.
Peter J BlankestijnDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hiddo J Lambers HeerspinkDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ron T GansevoortDepartment of Nephrology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Inserm · FRRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology · DEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE &

objectiveEarly prediction of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) currently use Cox models including baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) only. Alternative approaches include a Cox model that includes eGFR slope determined over a baseline period of time, a Cox model with time varying GFR, or a joint modeling approach. We studied if these more complex approaches may further improve ESKD prediction. STUDY

designProspective cohort. SETTING &

participantsWe re-used data from two CKD cohorts including patients with baseline eGFR >30ml/min per 1.73m2. MASTERPLAN (N = 505; 55 ESKD events) was used as development dataset, and NephroTest (N = 1385; 72 events) for validation. PREDICTORS: All models included age, sex, eGFR, and albuminuria, known prognostic markers for ESKD. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We trained the models on the MASTERPLAN data and determined discrimination and calibration for each model at 2 years follow-up for a prediction horizon of 2 years in the NephroTest cohort. We benchmarked the predictive performance against the Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE).

resultsThe C-statistics for the KFRE was 0.94 (95%CI 0.86 to 1.01). Performance was similar for the Cox model with time-varying eGFR (0.92 [0.84 to 0.97]), eGFR (0.95 [0.90 to 1.00]), and the joint model 0.91 [0.87 to 0.96]). The Cox model with eGFR slope showed the best calibration.

conclusionIn the present studies, where the outcome was rare and follow-up data was highly complete, the joint models did not offer improvement in predictive performance over more traditional approaches such as a survival model with time-varying eGFR, or a model with eGFR slope.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalDisease ProgressionFemaleGlomerular Filtration RateHumansKidney Failure, ChronicKidney Function TestsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesRenal Insufficiency, ChronicRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID31071186
PMCPMC6508737
OpenAlexW2944601587

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.