Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34030637›Full record

ArticleBMC nephrology2021

Coding practice in national and regional kidney biopsy registries.

Amélie Dendooven, Han Peetermans, Mark Helbert, Tri Q Nguyen, Niels Marcussen, Michio Nagata, Loreto Gesualdo, Agnieszka Perkowska-Ptasinska, Cristina Capusa, Juan M López-Gómez and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Histology and more-modern nephropathology].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. The intersection of health information management and clinical registries.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

23 authors.

Amélie DendoovenGhent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. amelie.dendooven@uzgent.be.
Han PeetermansZNA Middelheim Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.
Mark HelbertZNA Middelheim Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.
Tri Q NguyenUniversity Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Niels MarcussenOdense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Michio NagataUniversity of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan.
Loreto GesualdoUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Agnieszka Perkowska-PtasinskaMedical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Cristina CapusaCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Juan M López-GómezHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Colin GeddesGlasgow Renal and Transplant Unit, Glasgow, UK.
Myrurgia A Abdul-HamidMaastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mårten SegelmarkLund University, Lund, Sweden.
Rosnawati YahyaHospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mariela GarauUniversity of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Russell VillanuevaNational Kidney and Transplant Institute, Quezon City, The Philippines.
Anthony DormanBeaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Sean BarbourUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Ronald CornetAmsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Helmut HopferUniversity Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kerstin AmannUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Sabine LehHaukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Kidney Biopsy Codes for Pathologists project (www.kibico.org)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKidney biopsy registries all over the world benefit research, teaching and health policy. Comparison, aggregation and exchange of data is however greatly dependent on how registration and coding of kidney biopsy diagnoses are performed. This paper gives an overview over kidney biopsy registries, explores how these registries code kidney disease and identifies needs for improvement of coding practice.

methodsA literature search was undertaken to identify biopsy registries for medical kidney diseases. These data were supplemented with information from personal contacts and from registry websites. A questionnaire was sent to all identified registries, investigating age of registries, scope, method of coding, possible mapping to international terminologies as well as self-reported problems and suggestions for improvement.

resultsSixteen regional or national kidney biopsy registries were identified, of which 11 were older than 10 years. Most registries were located either in Europe (10/16) or in Asia (4/16). Registries most often use a proprietary coding system (12/16). Only a few of these coding systems were mapped to SNOMED CT (1), older SNOMED versions (2) or ERA-EDTA PRD (3). Lack of maintenance and updates of the coding system was the most commonly reported problem.

conclusionsThere were large gaps in the global coverage of kidney biopsy registries. Limited use of international coding systems among existing registries hampers interoperability and exchange of data. The study underlines that the use of a common and uniform coding system is necessary to fully realize the potential of kidney biopsy registries.

Indexed as

RegistriesBiopsyClinical CodingDatabases, FactualGlobal HealthHumansKidneyKidney DiseasesSurveys and QuestionnairesSystematized Nomenclature of MedicineVocabulary, ControlledCodingKidney biopsy registryNephropathologyRenal pathologySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34030637
PMCPMC8146626

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.