ArticleClinical kidney journal2025
Isolated microhematuria in potential kidney donors: evaluating kidney biopsy findings with dipstick urinalysis and urine microscopy results.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 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.
- A pilot study on the impact of large language model assistance on the evaluation of complex medical living kidney donor candidates.Clinical transplantation and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Isolated microhematuria (IMH) can signal hidden glomerular disease, necessitating detailed evaluations for potential kidney donors, including kidney biopsies. The optimal strategy for deciding on kidney biopsies remains unclear. While the British Transplant Society supports dipstick analysis, KDIGO focuses solely on urine microscopy. This study explored the correlation between kidney biopsy outcomes and results from dipstick urinalysis and urine microscopy in potential kidney donors. Methods: This retrospective study encompassed all potential kidney donors who received kidney biopsies following a positive urine dipstick result for IMH, irrespective of whether red blood cells (RBCs) were found on urine microscopy. We performed sensitivity and specificity analyses to assess the effectiveness of microscopy and dipstick urinalysis in identifying histological abnormalities in the kidney biopsies. Results: Approximately 49% of potential donors-133 out of 271-who had kidney biopsies due to positive dipstick tests showed negative results in urine microscopy for RBCs. In total, 168 donor candidates, or 62%, had abnormal findings in their biopsies, with nearly half of those diagnosed with immunoglobulin A nephropathy having negative urine microscopy results. Furthermore, 58% of potential donors with negative urine microscopy results-77 out of 133-also exhibited abnormal biopsy findings. The urine microscopy test displayed a sensitivity of 54.2% (95% confidence interval 46.6-61.5) and a specificity of 54.4% (95% confidence interval 44.8-63.7) for detecting abnormal biopsy results. Conclusion: This study highlighted a significant presence of donors with IMH with underlying glomerular lesions. Using urine microscopy showed limited sensitivity and specificity in identifying abnormal histopathological results. Relying solely on urine microscopy may miss critical pathologies like IgAN in prospective kidney donors. The persistence of IMH during dipstick urinalysis calls for kidney biopsy in potential donors. These findings suggest that our results be incorporated into future global guideline formulations.
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.