Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35498887›Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2022

Remote digital urinalysis with smartphone technology as part of remote management of glomerular disease during the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic: single-centre experience in 25 patients.

Madelena Stauss, Ajay Dhaygude, Arvind Ponnusamy, Martin Myers, Alexander Woywodt

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05389826 (mHealth System for the Self-control of Hyperphosphatemia in Patients With CKD.), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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.

NCT05389826 naunknown statusnot on this map

mHealth System for the Self-control of Hyperphosphatemia in Patients With CKD.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Universitari de BellvitgeRan2022 to 2023Enrolled50ConditionsDialysis Related ComplicationArmsmHealth App
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Role of Precision Nutrition in Kidney Disease.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Madelena StaussDepartment of Nephrology, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Ajay DhaygudeDepartment of Nephrology, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Arvind PonnusamyDepartment of Nephrology, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Martin MyersDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Alexander WoywodtDepartment of Nephrology, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3825-6955
Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the provision of healthcare through remote and increasingly digitalized means. The management of glomerular pathology, for which urinalysis is crucial, has been notably affected. Here we describe our single-centre experience of using remote digital urinalysis in the management of patients with glomerular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: All patients with native kidney glomerular disease who consented to participate in digital smartphone urinalysis monitoring between March 2020 and July 2021 were included. Electronic health records were contemporaneously reviewed for outcome data. Patient feedback was obtained through the testing portal. Results: Twenty-five patients utilized the digital urinalysis application. A total of 105 digital urinalysis tests were performed for a wide variety of indications. Four patients experienced a relapse (detected remotely) and two patients underwent three successful pregnancies. The majority of patients were managed virtually (60%) or virtually and face to face (F2F) combined (32%). The average number of clinic reviews and urine tests performed during the pandemic either virtually and/or F2F was comparable to levels pre-pandemic and the ratio of reviews to urinalysis (R:U) was stable (pre-pandemic 1:0.9 versus during the pandemic 1:0.8). Patients seen exclusively F2F with supplementary home monitoring had the highest R:U ratio at 1:2.1. A total of 95% of users provided feedback, all positive. Conclusion: Remote urinalysis proved a safe and convenient tool to facilitate decision-making where traditional urinalysis was difficult, impractical or impossible. Our approach allowed us to continue care in this vulnerable group of patients despite a lack of access to traditional urinalysis.

Indexed as

glomerular diseasesmartphone technologytelemedicineurinalysis

Identifiers

PMID35498887
PMCPMC9050594
OpenAlexW4206844040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.