ArticleBJGP open2025
Outcomes for older people with screening-detected versus existing chronic kidney disease: a cohort study with data linkage.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common health problem associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and premature death. It is estimated that one-third of people aged ≥70 years have CKD globally, many of whom are undiagnosed, but little is known about the value of screening.
aimTo compare the risk of adverse health outcomes between people with an existing diagnosis of CKD and those identified through screening, and identify factors associated with mortality in CKD. DESIGN &
settingProspective cohort study of 892 primary care patients aged ≥60 years with CKD (existing and screening detected) in Oxfordshire, with data linkage to civil death registry and secondary care.
methodHazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models to compare the risk of all-cause mortality, hospitalisation, CVD, ESKD separately, and as a composite between CKD groups, as well as to identify factors associated with mortality.
resultsAfter a median follow-up of 3-5 years, 49 people died, 512 were hospitalised, 78 had an incident CVD event, and none had an ESKD event. There was no difference in the composite outcome between those with existing CKD and those identified through screening (HR 0.94, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.33). Older age (HR 1.10, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.15), male sex (HR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.26 to 4.24), and heart failure (HR 5.18, 95% CI = 2.45 to 10.97) were associated with increased risk of death.
conclusionScreening older people for CKD may be of value, as their risk of short-term mortality, hospitalisation, and CVD is comparable with people routinely diagnosed. Larger studies with longer follow-up in more diverse and representative populations of older adults are needed to corroborate these findings.
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.