ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Distinguishing AKI from CKD: outcomes and characteristics of patients with abnormal serum creatinine and no known baseline.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComparison of a patient's abnormal serum creatinine result to an earlier value is fundamental to differentiating Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) from Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), and is the first step in electronic AKI detection systems. For those patients in whom a baseline serum creatinine is unavailable, some systems generate a warning message to highlight the elevated serum creatinine but without distinguishing AKI from CKD (a "?AKI?CKD" warning). We aimed to determine demographic characteristics of this group, the proportion who had a first presentation of AKI, their clinical outcomes, and how these alert messages translate into subsequent biochemical testing and follow-up.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis of adult patients with serum creatinine testing at University Hospitals of Leicester during 2019. Using the NHS England AKI detection algorithm, we identified patients with AKI Warning Test Scores (WTS) and "?AKI?CKD" warnings. The "?AKI?CKD" cohort was classified as probable AKI, probable CKD, or no follow-up result, based on subsequent serum creatinine measurements. Survival (90-day and 1-year) was analysed with Kaplan-Meier methods.
resultsAmong 3,464 patients with "?AKI?CKD" warnings, 8.5% were probable AKI, 59.4% probable CKD, and 32.0% had no follow-up test. Probable AKI patients were younger (median age 71 versus 76 years) and more often hospitalised at warning time (56% versus 15%). One-year survival was lower in probable AKI (72%) compared to probable CKD (88%) or no follow-up (89%). Probable AKI survival was similar to AKI WTS stage 1 but better than stages 2-3. Extending baseline serum creatinine look-back to 426 days changed categorisation minimally (≤ 2%).
conclusionsThese findings highlight that the major feature of the "?AKI?CKD" classification is not simply misclassification between AKI and CKD, but the variability of clinical response, with one-third of patients receiving no subsequent serum creatinine test. Most patients flagged as "?AKI?CKD" likely have CKD rather than AKI, and this, coupled with comparable outcomes of the probable AKI group to early-stage AKI, suggests minimal missed population-level AKI detection. However, one-third lacked follow-up testing, highlighting missed opportunities to identify CKD. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.