Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36865013›Full record

ReviewClinical kidney journal2023

Unmet needs in clinical trials in CKD: questions we have not answered and answers we have not questioned.

Adeera Levin, Megan Borkum

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical kidney journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Adeera LevinDivision of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,Canada.
Megan BorkumDivision of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0082-554X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many advances have been made in the field of nephrology over the last decade. These include an increasing focus on patient-centred involvement in trials, exploration of innovative trial designs and methodology, the growth of personalized medicine and, most importantly, novel therapeutic agents that are disease-modifying for large groups of patients with and without diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Despite this progress, many questions remain unanswered and we have not critically evaluated some of our assumptions, practices and guidelines despite emerging evidence to challenge current paradigms and discrepant patient-preferred outcomes. How best to implement best practices, diagnose various conditions, examine better diagnostic tools, treat laboratory values versus patients and understand prediction equations in the clinical context remain unanswered. As we enter a new era in nephrology, there are extraordinary opportunities to change the culture and care. Rigorous research paradigms enabling both the generation and the use of new information should be explored. We identify here some key areas of interest and suggest renewed efforts to describe and address these gaps so that we can develop, design and execute trials of importance to all.

Indexed as

CKDgapsnovel approachespatient-centred outcomes

Identifiers

PMID36865013
PMCPMC9972821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.