ReviewPractical laboratory medicine2022
Assessing the value of serum and urinary interleukins for diagnosis of acute kidney injury in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Practical laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers for prediction of acute kidney injury in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of interleukin-6 in multiple diseases: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.Heliyon · 2024Review
- KIM-1, IL-18, and NGAL, in the Machine Learning Prediction of Kidney Injury among Children Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation-A Pilot Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Prognostic Value of The Leuko-Glycemic Index in Acute Myocardial Infarction; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2023Review
- Advances in laboratory detection of acute kidney injury.Practical laboratory medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSeveral studies have questioned the diagnostic utility of interleukins (IL) in detecting acute kidney injury (AKI) in pediatric population. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the diagnostic value of ILs in pediatric AKI patients.
methodTwo independent researchers screened records acquired through searching in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, until the end of 2020. Articles evaluating serum and urinary levels of ILs in AKI patients were included in this study. Data were extracted and analyzed using STATA software.
resultsTwenty-one studies were included. Analyses showed that AUC, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of urinary IL-18 for diagnosing AKI were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.81), 0.64 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.87), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.85) and 6 (95% CI: 1, 23), respectively. Those values were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.83), 0.58 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.76), 0.87 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.96), and 9 (95% CI: 4, 20) for serum IL-6, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.76), 0.53 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.72), 0.79 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.91) and 4 (95% CI: 2, 8) for serum IL-8, respectively. Urinary levels of ILs 6, 8 and 10 were not significantly different between AKI patients and the non-AKI control group. Serum levels of ILs 10 and 18 were not adequately evaluated in the studies.
conclusionIL-18 urinary levels and IL-6 and IL-8 serum levels are significantly higher in AKI patients compared to the non-AKI group. However, their low sensitivity and specificity in detecting AKI questions their diagnostic value.
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.