ArticleKidney research and clinical practice2022
Pathological validation of the Japanese Renal Pathology Society classification and challenges in predicting renal prognosis in patients with diabetic nephropathy.
Article in Kidney research and clinical practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic assessment of the Japanese Renal Pathology Society classification in Chinese patients with histologically confirmed diabetic kidney disease.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2026Article
- Progress in mechanistic and clinical translational research of endothelin A receptor antagonists in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease: a narrative review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Patterns of Glomerular Injury: Histopathological Classification and Clinical Correlation.Cureus · 2025Review
- Clinical and pathological significance of Orai1 channel expression in human diabetic nephropathy.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2024Article
- Morphometric analysis of chronicity on kidney biopsy: a useful prognostic exercise.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic nephropathy (DN) accounts for approximately half of all cases of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease worldwide. The Renal Pathology Society (RPS) classification has been used to predict the renal prognosis in DN. In 2018, the Japanese Renal Pathology Society (JRPS) proposed a comprehensive classification system that included pathological changes in the kidney. The clinical significance of the JRPS classification system was comparatively evaluated in the present study.
methodsA total of 93 cases diagnosed with DN from 2009 to 2019 were enrolled. JRPS scores (J-scores) were calculated by scoring the pathological factors in the JRPS classification system and comparing them with clinical parameters.
resultsMost pathological factors constituting the J-score were significantly correlated with clinical factors. Laminated nodules were inversely correlated with estimated glomerular filtration rate. After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, hemoglobin A1c, diabetes duration, and hypertension, CKD stage was significantly correlated with JRPS grade, nodular lesions, and exudative lesions in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. However, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that the J-score (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.639) had lower clinical significance than the traditional RPS classification system (AUC = 0.675).
conclusionThe JRPS classification can more comprehensively reflect renal changes than the RPS classification and is correlated with renal survival. When creating a new pathological classification, arteriolar hyalinosis should not be included, whereas laminated nodules should be included.
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.