SynthesisRenal failure2025
Screening for chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of emerging evidence and perspectives.
Synthesis in Renal failure, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aims to summarize the most recent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chronic kidney disease (CKD) screening, identify the most cost-effective strategies under various conditions, and compare methodologies used in current health economics evaluations. The findings provide insights to support the implementation of appropriate screening strategies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
methodsThe final search was conducted between January 1, 2010, and July 1, 2024. Studies were screened for inclusion, and data were extracted, recalculated, and subjected to quality assessment.
resultsOf the 786 articles identified, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. The probability of screening being cost-effective was 100% for diabetic populations, 75% for those with hypertension, and 72% for the general population. Key drivers of the cost-effectiveness models included drug efficacy, discount rates, and CKD progression probabilities. For diabetic populations, initiating at around age 50 with intervals of 5 to 10 years was generally found to be appropriate. The overall quality of the included studies was high.
conclusionsCKD screening is cost-effective in high-risk groups such as those with diabetes or hypertension, while general population screening depends on prevalence, methods, and frequency. In resource-limited settings, phased implementation starting with high-risk groups, integration into existing care pathways, and pilot programs using digital tools may enhance feasibility. Future research should refine optimal methods, timing, and intervals, and compare multiple strategies rather than only against standard care.
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.