ArticleNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2024
Prognostic Scores for Acute Kidney Injury in Critically Ill Patients.
Article in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 2024. 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.
- Impact of invasive mechanical ventilation support on renal function in critically ill patients.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2026Observational
- Novel graph-based centralized and decentralized approaches for early AKI prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting acute kidney injury in elderly patients in intensive care unit.Renal failure · 2025Article
- Association between mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration and mortality in ICU patients with acute kidney injury: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
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
backgroundNumerous prognostic scores have been developed and used in intensive care; however, the applicability and effectiveness of these scores in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury may vary due to the characteristics of this population.
objectiveTo assess the predictive capacity of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (SAPS III), Sequential Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Nursing Activities Score (NAS) prognostic scoring systems for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.
methodsCohort, prospective and quantitative study with follow-up of 141 critical patients in intensive care. A questionnaire was used to collect information about the capacity of prognostic scoring systems to predict AKI. Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney tests were used and the statistical significance was considered to be at two-sided
resultsIt was revealed that 41.85% of patients developed acute kidney injury during their stay in the Intensive Care Unit and indicated greater severity assessed by the medians of prognostic scoring systems-SAPS III [55 (42-65 vs. 38 (32-52),
conclusionsThe SAPS III, SOFA and NAS prognostic scoring systems showed good predictive capacity for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. This study was not registered.
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.