ArticleClinical kidney journal2019
Dense deposit disease: a greatly increased biopsy incidence in India versus the USA.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe present the largest clinicopathologic case series to date of dense deposit disease (DDD) in an Indian population and compare the renal biopsy incidence rate to that seen in a large renal laboratory in USA.
methodsCases of DDD were identified and evaluated from native kidney biopsies reported at Renopath, India and at Arkana Laboratories, in the USA. Renopath receives biopsies from four states, located in the South and Eastern part of India. Arkana Laboratories' biopsies came from 37 states across the USA.
resultsDuring the study period, there were a total of 25 patients diagnosed with DDD among the 7335 native kidney biopsies at Renopath. Thus, the biopsy incidence rate (cases of DDD/total renal biopsies/year) is 0.0034. By comparison, there were 10 cases of DDD diagnosed among 26 319 native kidney biopsies at Arkana Laboratories during the same time period, with a renal biopsy incidence rate of 0.00038.
conclusionsDDD in this Indian subpopulation has similar clinical and pathologic characteristics when compared to previously reported studies. However, the biopsy incidence rate is about 890% or 8.9 times more common in this subset of the Indian population when compared with a broad cross-section of the US population. In addition to potential genetic factors, environmental conditions and chronic infections likely contribute to the markedly higher biopsy incidence rate. Given the much greater number of patients with DDD in this population, further retrospective and prospective studies would allow more rapid progress in understanding the pathogenesis of DDD and thus potential treatment of patients with DDD.
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.