Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40226368›Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2025

Identifying a cohort of hospitalized chronic kidney disease patients using electronic health records: lessons learnt and implications for future research and clinical practice guidelines.

Daniel Fernández-Llaneza, Luuk B Hilbrands, Liffert Vogt, Rik H G Olde Engberink, Joanna E Klopotowska, LEAPfROG Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Daniel Fernández-LlanezaDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2770-4214
Luuk B HilbrandsDepartment of Nephrology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4935-9765
Liffert VogtDepartment of Internal Medicine and Nephrology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4585-7505
Rik H G Olde EngberinkDepartment of Internal Medicine and Nephrology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3177-2279
Joanna E KlopotowskaDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9707-5740
LEAPfROG Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Safe medication prescribing for hospitalized chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients is challenging. Leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) offers potential for decision support. A first step is to capture the CKD cohort through so called electronic phenotypes (e-phenotypes). However, available e-phenotypes, defined by logical rules applied to EHR data, lack consensus and are often inconsistently aligned with the Kidney Disease - Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline for CKD (KDIGO-CKD). Therefore, local analyses and formalization efforts are essential to derive logical rules for CKD cohort selection. Methods: We analyzed routinely collected EHR data from adults hospitalized at Amsterdam University Medical Centre (2018-23). Six logical rules were investigated: four derived from KDIGO-CKD (reduced glomerular filtration rate, albuminuria, kidney replacement therapy, and other markers of kidney damage) and two from published studies (diagnosis codes and medications). Results: The study included 108 854 hospitalized patients. Extensive efforts were needed to formalize the clinical CKD definition from KDIGO-CKD and adapt it to EHR data, including selecting appropriate CKD diagnosis codes, medications, and computable criteria. Pooling six logical rules resulted in identifying 17 805 hospitalized CKD patients (16.4%), showcasing varying CKD patient counts per rule (with proportions ranging from 2.1% to 8.4%). Nonetheless, baseline characteristics across cohorts were comparable. Over one-third of patients identified by decreased eGFR or albuminuria/proteinuria measurements lacked a corresponding diagnosis code. Conclusions: Deriving and formalizing six logical rules required close collaboration between nephrologists, EHR data experts, and medical informaticians. Our study provides groundwork towards a computer-interpretable CKD definition to standardize cohort capture in EHR-based studies.

Indexed as

chronic kidney diseaseclinical practice guidelineelectronic health recordepidemiologynephrology

Identifiers

PMID40226368
PMCPMC11986813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.