ArticleClinical kidney journal2022
Incorrect application of the KDIGO acute kidney injury staging criteria.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep-learning time-series anomaly detection of acute kidney injury from creatinine-eGFR trajectories in the ICU.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring the role of ferroptosis-related genes as biomarkers in acute kidney injury.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent research demonstrated substantial heterogeneity in the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) acute kidney injury (AKI) diagnosis and staging criteria implementations in clinical research. Here we report an additional issue in the implementation of the criteria: the incorrect description and application of a stage 3 serum creatinine (SCr) criterion. Instead of an increase in SCr to or beyond 4.0 mg/dL, studies apparently interpreted this criterion as an increase in SCr by 4.0 mg/dL. Methods: Using a sample of 8124 consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, we illustrate the implications of such incorrect application. The AKI stage distributions associated with the correct and incorrect stage 3 SCr criterion implementations were compared, both with and without the stage 3 renal replacement therapy (RRT) criterion. In addition, we compared chronic kidney disease presence, ICU mortality rates and hospital mortality rates associated with each of the AKI stages and the misclassified cases. Results: Where incorrect implementation of the SCr stage 3 criterion showed a stage 3 AKI rate of 29%, correct implementation revealed a rate of 34%, mainly due to shifts from stage 1 to stage 3. Without the stage 3 RRT criterion, the stage 3 AKI rates were 9% and 19% after incorrect and correct implementation, respectively. The ICU and hospital mortality rates in cases misclassified as stage 1 or 2 were similar to those in cases correctly classified as stage 1 instead of stage 3. Conclusions: While incorrect implementation of the SCr stage 3 criterion has significant consequences for AKI severity epidemiology, consequences for clinical decision making may be less severe. We urge researchers and clinicians to verify their implementation of the AKI staging criteria.
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.