Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36008827›Full record

Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2022

A Bayesian reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial.

Fernando G Zampieri, Bruno R da Costa, Suvi T Vaara, François Lamontagne, Bram Rochwerg, Alistair D Nichol, Shay McGuinness, Danny F McAuley, Marlies Ostermann, Ron Wald and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Professor Rinaldo Bellomo: Founder, architect, and choreographer of critical care nephrology.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

12 authors at 12 institutions in 8 countries.

Fernando G ZampieriAcademic Research Organization, Albert Einstein Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil.
Bruno R da CostaApplied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Suvi T VaaraDivision of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
François LamontagneDepartment of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Bram RochwergDepartment of Medicine (Division of Critical Care) and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Alistair D NicholDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University College Dublin Clinical Research Centre at St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Shay McGuinnessCardiothoracic and Vascular Intensive Care Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland and Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Danny F McAuleyThe Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University, and The Regional Intensive Care Unit, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK.
Marlies OstermannDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, King's College London, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Ron WaldDivision of Nephrology, St. Michael's Hospital, and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Sean M BagshawDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 2-124E Clinical Sciences Building, 8440-112 St NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G2B7, Canada. bagshaw@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3633-6596
STARRT-AKI Investigators
St Thomas' Hospital · GBUniversity of Alberta · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CACentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke · CAUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Ulster · GBAuckland City Hospital · NZUniversity College Dublin · IEImpact · CAMonash University · AUUniversité de Sherbrooke · CAUnité de recherche sur les maladies cardiovasculaires et métaboliques · FR

Funding

CIHR Project Grant 389635
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTiming of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework.

methodsWe performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zero-one inflated beta regression.

resultsThe posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI] - 3.30%; 3.40%], - 0.39% [95% CrI - 3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrI - 2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference of - 3.55 days [95% CrI - 6.38; - 0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrI - 1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66.

conclusionsIn a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryCritical IllnessBayes TheoremHumansProbabilityRenal Replacement TherapyAcute kidney injuryBayesianDialysisKidney-replacement therapyMortalityRandomizedTrial

Identifiers

PMID36008827
PMCPMC9404618
OpenAlexW4293034648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.