ArticleMalaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia2021
A clinical audit of the diagnosis and management of chronic kidney disease in a primary care clinic.
Article in Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes of the pilot project Nephrology Liaison Clinic in a primary care clinic: A retrospective observational study.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2025Article
- Underprescription of Fibrate Among Patients With Diabetic Retinopathy in Perak, Malaysia.Cureus · 2024Article
- Assessing the quality of CKD care using process quality indicators: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Characteristics and factors associated with severity of COVID-19 infections in primary care.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2023Article
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
introductionThis audit was performed to monitor the diagnosis and management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) according to the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of CKD 2018 in a primary care clinic.
methodsPatients who attended the clinic from April to June 2019 and fulfilled the diagnosis of CKD were included in this study, except for those diagnosed with a urinary tract infection, pregnant women and those on dialysis. These criteria were set based on the CPGs. The standards were set following discussions with the clinic team members with reference to local guidelines, the 2017 United Kingdom National CKD audit and other relevant studies.
resultsA total of 384 medical records were included in this audit. Overall, 5 out of 20 criteria for processes and 3 of 8 clinical outcomes for CKD care did not meet the set standards. These included the following: documentation of CKD classification based on albumin category (43.8%); CKD advice (19.0%); dietitian referral (9.1%); nephrologist referral (45.5%); haemoglobin level monitoring (65.7%); overall blood pressure (BP) control (45.3%); BP readings for diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and non-DKD with > 1 g/day of proteinuria (< 130/80 mmHg, 37.0%); eGFR reduction of < 25% over the past year (77.2%). Identified problems included the absence of a CKD registry, eGFR and albuminuria reports, and a dedicated team, among other factors.
conclusionsOverall, 8 out of 28 criteria did not meet the standards of CKD care set for this audit. The problems identified in this audit have been addressed. Moreover, strategies have also been formulated to improve the diagnosis and management of CKD in this clinic.
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.