ArticleBMC nephrology2021
Impact of rural versus urban setting on kidney markers: a cross-sectional study in South-Kivu, DRCongo.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2021. 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost studies of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have been conducted in urban settings. They relied on GFR estimated from serum creatinine alone and on the inexpensive, convenient urinary dipstick to assess proteinuria. The dipstick for proteinuria has not been directly compared with the gold standard albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) in a large-sized study in SSA. We hereby assessed the influence of rural versus urban location on the level, interpretation, and diagnostic performance of proteinuria dipstick versus ACR.
methodsIn a cross-sectional population-based study of CKD in both urban (n = 587) and rural (n = 730) settings in South-Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we assessed the prevalence, performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value) and determinants of a positive dipstick proteinuria as compared with albuminuria (ACR). Albuminuria was subdivided into: A1 (< 30 mg/g creatinine), A2 (30 to 299 mg/g creatinine) and A3 (≥ 300 mg/g creatinine).
resultsThe overall prevalence of positive dipstick proteinuria (≥ 1+) was 9.6 % (95 % CI, 7.9-11.3) and was higher in rural than in urban residents (13.1 % vs. 4.8 %, p < 0.001), whereas the prevalence of albuminuria (A2 or A3) was similar in both sites (6 % rural vs. 7.6 % urban, p = 0.31). In both sites, dipstick proteinuria ≥ 1 + had a poor sensitivity (< 50 %) and positive predictive value (< 11 %) for the detection of A2 or A3. The negative predictive value was 95 %. Diabetes [aOR 6.12 (1.52-24.53)] was a significant predictor of A3 whereas alkaline [aOR 7.45 (3.28-16.93)] and diluted urine [aOR 2.19 (1.35-3.57)] were the main predictors of positive dipstick proteinuria.
conclusionsACR and dipstick proteinuria have similar positivity rates in the urban site whereas, in the rural site, dipstick was 2-fold more often positive than ACR. The poor sensitivity and positive predictive value of the dipstick as compared with ACR makes it unattractive as a screening tool in community studies of CKD in SSA.
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.