ArticleFrontiers in immunology2023
Evaluation of a renal risk score for Japanese patients with ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis in a multi-center cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation study of the antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) kidney risk score in Japanese patients with ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis.Renal failure · 2026Article
- The value of the current histological scores and classifications of ANCA glomerulonephritis in predicting long-term outcome.Clinical kidney journal · 2024Article
- Development of a Kidney Prognostic Score in a Japanese Cohort of Patients With Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Autoantibody Vasculitis.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- The correlation of interstitial change with renal prognosis in patients with myeloperoxidase-ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis: a single-center retrospective analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated glomerulonephritis, prediction of renal survival should guide the choice of therapy, but a prediction of the histological classification has inconsistencies. Objectives: To evaluate the usefulness of renal risk score (RRS) for Japanese patients with ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis (AAGN) and compare the prediction for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) between RRS and the histological classification. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 96 patients with AAGN who underwent a renal biopsy. Renal survival was categorized by RRS, and the histological classification was assessed separately. We compared the predictive values for RRS and the histological classification. Results: The median observational period was 37.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 21.5-77.0) months. The median RRS point at the time of renal biopsy was 2 (IQR 0-7.8), and the patients were categorized into low- (n = 29), medium- (n = 43), and high-risk groups (n = 24) using RRS. As expected, the renal prognosis was the worst in the "high-risk" group and the best in the "low-risk" group. In the histological classification, the survival deteriorated progressively from "focal" (best) to "mixed," "crescentic," and "sclerotic" (worst) classes, different from the order in the original proposal for this system. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that RRS was independently associated with ESRD. The difference in prediction for renal survival between RRS and the histological classification was not significant using area under receiver-operating-characteristic curves. Conclusion: We evaluated the usefulness of RRS in Japanese patients with AAGN and found it a stable predictor of renal survival in such patients.
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.