Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40014297›Full record

ArticleJournal of nephrology2025

The prognostic reasoning system for chronic kidney disease progression (PROGRES-CKD) may help improve waiting list management for outpatient nephrology services in a second-level public hospital in Italy.

Paolo Fabbrini, Federico Pieruzzi, Francesco Bellocchio, Raul Casana Eslava, Jordi Silvestre Llopis, Kevin Morillo Navarro, Paola Ferraresi, Len Usvyat, John Larkin, Jaroslav Rosemberg and 2 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Paolo FabbriniStruttura Complessa Nefrologia e Dialisi ASST Nord Milano, Milan, Italy. paolo.fabbrini@gmail.com.
Federico PieruzziNephrology and Dialysis Unit, ASST Monza San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
Francesco BellocchioData Science Division, EMEA, APAC, LATAM Regions - Clinical Advanced Analytics, Global Medical Office, Fresenius Medical Care, Italia Spa, Crema, Italy.
Raul Casana EslavaSanta Barbara Smart Health, GDTI, Fresenius Medical Care, Valencia, Spain.
Jordi Silvestre LlopisSanta Barbara Smart Health, GDTI, Fresenius Medical Care, Valencia, Spain.
Kevin Morillo NavarroSanta Barbara Smart Health, GDTI, Fresenius Medical Care, Valencia, Spain.
Paola FerraresiMarketing Department, Fresenius Medical Care, Italia Spa, Crema, Italy.
Len UsvyatClinical Advanced Analytics, Global Medical Office, Fresenius Medical Care, Waltham, USA.
John LarkinClinical Advanced Analytics, Global Medical Office, Fresenius Medical Care, Waltham, USA.
Jaroslav RosembergFMC-Dialysis Services Slovakia, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Stefano StuardGlobal Medical Office, Clinical Affairs, CoE Clinical & Therapeutic Governance, Fresenius Medical Care Italia Spa, Crema, Italy.
Luca NeriData Science Division, EMEA, APAC, LATAM Regions - Clinical Advanced Analytics, Global Medical Office, Fresenius Medical Care, Italia Spa, Crema, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe management of patients with non-dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) is challenging due to coexisting diseases, competing risks and uncertainties around optimal transition planning. Such clinical challenges are further exacerbated by physician shortage, coupled with rising service demands, which may hinder timely medical access due to long waiting times. Accurate progression risk assessment may help optimize resource allocation and adapting care based on individual patients' needs. This study validated the Prognostic Reasoning System for Chronic Kidney Disease Progression (PROGRES-CKD) in an Italian public hospital and compared its potential impact on waiting list optimization against physician-based protocols.

methodsFirst we first validated PROGRES-CKD by assessing its accuracy in predicting kidney replacement therapy (KRT) initiation within 6 months and 24 months in a historical cohort of patients treated at the San Gerardo Hospital (Italy) between 01-01-2015 and 31-12-2019. In a second study we compared PROGRES-CKD to attending nephrologists' prognostic ratings and simulated their potential impact on a waiting list management protocol.

resultsWe included 2005 patients who underwent 11,757 outpatient nephrology visits in 4 years. Most visits occurred for NDD-CKD stage 4 patients; the incidence of KRT onset was 10.8 and 9.32/100 patient-years at the 6 and 24-month prediction horizon cohorts, respectively. PROGRES-CKD demonstrated high accuracy in predicting KRT initiation at 6 and 24 months (AUROC = 0.88 and AUROC = 0.85, respectively). Nephrologists' prognostic performance was highly operator-dependent, albeit always significantly lower than PROGRES-CKD. In the simulation exercise, allocation based on PROGRES-CKD resulted in more follow-up visits for patients progressing to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and fewer visits for non-progressing patients, compared to allocation determined by nephrologists' prognosis.

conclusionsPROGRES-CKD showed high accuracy in a real-world application. Waiting list simulation suggests that PROGRES-CKD may enable more efficient allocation of resources.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareNephrologyRenal Insufficiency, ChronicWaiting ListsAgedDisease ProgressionFemaleHospitals, PublicHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRenal Replacement TherapyRisk AssessmentTime FactorsAI (artificial intelligence)Chronic kidney diseaseProgression of chronic kidney diseaseRisk scoreTransition managementWaiting list

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.