SynthesisPloS one2022
A systematic review of statistical methodology used to evaluate progression of chronic kidney disease using electronic healthcare records.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated classification of clinical diagnoses in electronic health records using transformer.PloS one · 2025Article
- Common mistakes in biostatistics.Clinical kidney journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic healthcare records (EHRs) are a useful resource to study chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression prior to starting dialysis, but pose methodological challenges as kidney function tests are not done on everybody, nor are tests evenly spaced. We sought to review previous research of CKD progression using renal function tests in EHRs, investigating methodology used and investigators' recognition of data quality issues. METHODS AND
findingsWe searched for studies investigating CKD progression using EHRs in 4 databases (Medline, Embase, Global Health and Web of Science) available as of August 2021. Of 80 articles eligible for review, 59 (74%) were published in the last 5.5 years, mostly using EHRs from the UK, USA and East Asian countries. 33 articles (41%) studied rates of change in eGFR, 23 (29%) studied changes in eGFR from baseline and 15 (19%) studied progression to binary eGFR thresholds. Sample completeness data was available in 44 studies (55%) with analysis populations including less than 75% of the target population in 26 studies (33%). Losses to follow-up went unreported in 62 studies (78%) and 11 studies (14%) defined their cohort based on complete data during follow up. Methods capable of handling data quality issues and other methodological challenges were used in a minority of studies.
conclusionsStudies based on renal function tests in EHRs may have overstated reliability of findings in the presence of informative missingness. Future renal research requires more explicit statements of data completeness and consideration of i) selection bias and representativeness of sample to the intended target population, ii) ascertainment bias where follow-up depends on risk, and iii) the impact of competing mortality. We recommend that renal progression studies should use statistical methods that take into account variability in renal function, informative censoring and population heterogeneity as appropriate to the study question.
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.