Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36941674›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive care2023

Analysis of urinary C-C motif chemokine ligand 14 (CCL14) and first-generation urinary biomarkers for predicting renal recovery from acute kidney injury: a prospective exploratory study.

Ben-Shu Qian, Hui-Miao Jia, Yi-Bing Weng, Xin-Cheng Li, Chao-Dong Chen, Fang-Xing Guo, Yu-Zhen Han, Li-Feng Huang, Yue Zheng, Wen-Xiong Li

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Biomarkers in acute kidney injury.Annals of intensive care · 2024
    Review
  13. Observational
  14. Review
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

10 authors.

Ben-Shu QianDepartment of Surgical Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongren Tiyuchang Nanlu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Hui-Miao JiaDepartment of Surgical Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongren Tiyuchang Nanlu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Yi-Bing WengDepartment of Emergent Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Lu-He Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 101100, China.
Xin-Cheng LiDepartment of Surgical Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongren Tiyuchang Nanlu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Chao-Dong ChenDepartment of Surgical Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongren Tiyuchang Nanlu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Fang-Xing GuoDepartment of Surgical Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongren Tiyuchang Nanlu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Yu-Zhen HanDepartment of Surgical Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongren Tiyuchang Nanlu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Li-Feng HuangDepartment of Surgical Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongren Tiyuchang Nanlu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Yue ZhengDepartment of Surgical Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongren Tiyuchang Nanlu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China. zhengyue1978@163.com.
Wen-Xiong LiDepartment of Surgical Intensive Critical Unit, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongren Tiyuchang Nanlu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China. liwx1126@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7074-1136

Funding

The Capital's Funds for Health improvement and research 2020-2-2061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent syndrome in the intensive care unit (ICU). AKI patients with kidney function recovery have better short-term and long-term prognoses compared with those with non-recovery. Numerous studies focus on biomarkers to distinguish them. To better understand the predictive performance of urinary biomarkers of renal recovery in patients with AKI, we evaluated C-C motif chemokine ligand 14 (CCL14) and two first-generation biomarkers (cell cycle arrest biomarkers and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin) in two ICU settings.

methodsWe performed a prospective study to analyze urinary biomarkers for predicting renal recovery from AKI. Patients who developed AKI after ICU admission were enrolled and urinary biomarkers including tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2 (TIMP-2), insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), CCL14, and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) were detected on the day of AKI diagnosis. The primary endpoint was non-recovery from AKI within 7 days. The individual discriminative ability of CCL14, [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] and NGAL to predict renal non-recovery were evaluated by the area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC).

resultsOf 164 AKI patients, 64 (39.0%) failed to recover from AKI onset. CCL14 showed a fair prediction ability for renal non-recovery with an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.63-0.77, p < 0.001). [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] showed the best prediction for renal non-recovery with an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.84, p < 0.001). However, NGAL had no use in predicting non-recovery with an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI 0.45-0.60, p = 0.562). A two-parameter model (non-renal SOFA score and AKI stage) predicted renal non-recovery with an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.77-0.83, p = 0.004). When [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] was combined with the clinical factors, the AUC was significantly improved to 0.82 (95% CI 0.74-0.87, p = 0.049).

conclusionsUrinary CCL14 and [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] were fair predictors of renal non-recovery from AKI. Combing urinary [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] with a clinical model consisting of non-renal SOFA score and AKI stage enhanced the predictive power for renal non-recovery. Urinary CCL14 showed no significant advantage in predicting renal non-recovery compared to [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7].

Indexed as

Acute kidney injuryCCL14IGFBP7NGALPrognosisRenal recoveryTIMP-2

Identifiers

PMID36941674
PMCPMC10026399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read44
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.