ArticleKidney research and clinical practice2025
Statistical consideration in nephrology research.
Article in Kidney research and clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging Urinary Biomarkers and Innovative Technologies for the Early Detection and Personalized Management of Chronic Kidney Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Development and validation of an explainable machine learning model for predicting osteoporosis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nephrology research plays an important role in advancing our understanding of kidney disease and improving patient outcomes. However, the complexity of nephrology data and the application of advanced statistical methods present significant challenges. This review highlights key statistical considerations in nephrology research, focusing on common errors such as violations of statistical assumptions, multicollinearity, missing data, overfitting, and the integration of machine learning tools. It emphasizes the importance of applying appropriate statistical approaches to ensure the reliability of study findings. Additionally, the review underscores the need for transparency and reproducibility in nephrology research, particularly the importance of open access to data, code, and study protocols. By utilizing tools like R, RStudio, Git, and GitHub, researchers can integrate their code, results, and data into a transparent workflow, enhancing the reproducibility of their research. This review also presents a practical checklist for promoting reproducible research practices, which can help improve the quality, transparency, and reliability of nephrology studies. This review aims to contribute to the advancement of nephrology research and, ultimately, to support the long-term goal of improving patient care and outcomes.
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.