ArticleCentral European journal of urology2025
Comparison of the performance of different formulae to assess eGFR in children after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is an ongoing debate concerning the right formula to estimate GFR in pediatric oncological patients or recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Material and methods: We did a retrospective analysis of renal function data before and up-to 3 years post hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We checked the accuracy and bias of eGFR based on Revised Results: We included 179 patients (67.0% female, 20.7% chronic kidney disease) aged 8.5 (5.5) years. Overall eGFR based on the U25CYSC formula performed best (baseline and 3-year follow up percentage of values outside the confidence limits 3.9, and 3.3%, respectively). One year after HSCT the best performance was offered by Schwartz 2009 formula (2.8% of outliers). No other studied formula in the overall analysis had the percentage of outliers less than 5%. FLANDERS had lowest and U25CYSC highest mean error (0.21 vs -22.53 ml/min/1.73 m Conclusions: There were small differences in accuracy between simpler eGFR formulae against the reference formula, however we observed differences in error. The U25CYSC offered best accuracy but largest error leading to underestimation of eGFR. Therefore, when applying given formula, one must be mindful of its potential limitations and potential inherent biases.
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.