ArticleClinical kidney journal2025
Applicability of the Framingham Risk Score in predicting mortality among kidney failure patients: an international analysis.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The usefulness of the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) for estimation of mortality risk in kidney failure patients was explored in three cohorts of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Methods: Associations of the FRS with mortality risk were analysed among 392 Swedish non-dialysed (median age 56 years, males 62.8%, median FRS 19.5%) and 109 haemodialysed (median age 66 years, males 57.8%, median FRS 17.4%) ESRD patients and 1276 Chinese peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients (median age 50 years, males 55.6%, FRS 12.3%). We used Fine-Gray models to estimate relative risk associated with the FRS and its components, restricted mean survival time (RMST) to quantitate survival differences associated with the FRS and receiver operating characteristics curve analysis to estimate prognostic value of adding non-traditional risk factors to the FRS. Results: Despite different baseline characteristics, a 1 standard deviation increase in the FRS associated with similar increases (subhazard ratios 1.39-1.63) of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk after adjusting for body mass index, serum albumin, haemoglobin and C-reactive protein (CRP). RMST and ∆RMST showed shorter survival time compared with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in middle and high versus low FRS tertile. High versus low FRS tertiles showed 2- to 4-fold higher cumulative incident risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Adding non-traditional risk factors such as serum albumin and CRP to the FRS improved risk prediction marginally. Conclusions: A higher FRS associated with similar increases in mortality risk in three distinctly different cohorts of ESRD patients, whereas the addition of non-traditional risk factors had a negligible impact. The FRS is a valid tool for estimation of mortality risk in ESRD patients.
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.