Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42112143›Full record

ArticleKidney medicine2026

External Validation and Recalibration of a Risk Calculator for Major Bleeding After Diagnostic Kidney Biopsy.

Jordan Thorne, Victoria Lebedeva, Aran Thanamayooran, Tulayla Katmeh, Isaac Bai, Bright Huo, Geraint Berger, Leah E Cahill, Keigan More, David Clark and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Jordan ThorneNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Victoria LebedevaSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Aran ThanamayooranDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Tulayla KatmehDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Isaac BaiDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Bright HuoDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Geraint BergerDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Leah E CahillNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Keigan MoreNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.
David ClarkNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Amanda VinsonNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Matthew A WeirSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Andrew A HouseSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Karthik TennankoreNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Pavel S RoshanovSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rationale & Objective: Bleeding is a serious complication of diagnostic kidney biopsy. A risk calculator for major bleeding associated with kidney biopsy exists, but its performance has not been tested externally. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting & Participants: We collected data from all adults who underwent diagnostic kidney biopsy from 2012 to 2019 at a quaternary care center in Halifax, NS to generate an external validation cohort for the "Risk of bleeding complications after kidney biopsy" prediction model (https://perioperativerisk.com/kbrc), which includes the predictors of age, weight, height, platelet count, hemoglobin, kidney size, and native versus transplant graft kidney. Outcomes: Major bleeding was defined as the need for blood transfusion, surgical intervention/embolization, or death. Analytical Approach: Predicted probabilities from patients in the validation cohort were used to assess the model, which was then re-examined using a larger combined cohort of patients from both model derivation and validation datasets. Results: External validation was performed using 715 patients in an external validation cohort from Halifax, NS. Major bleeding occurred in 48 of 1,732 patients in the combined cohort, with a total major bleeding risk of 2.7%. The model demonstrated good overall discrimination performance in the validation cohort (C-statistic, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.85) and was well calibrated (calibration slope, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.41-1.02). Recalibration improved performance in the combined cohort; model performance improved with the combined dataset (optimism-corrected C-statistic, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79-0.88]; bias-corrected calibration slope, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]). Limitations: Although model extension was performed with a relatively large patient cohort, the precision of performance remained limited by the small number of major bleeding events. Conclusions: In this study, a risk calculator for predicting major bleeding complications from kidney biopsy demonstrated good model performance in an external validation that improved with recalibration in a combined cohort. This model can be used to individualize patient risk assessment for kidney biopsy-related major bleeding events, facilitating preprocedural optimization and more efficient allocation of postprocedural monitoring.

Indexed as

Bleeding eventskidney biopsykidney diseaseprediction modelrisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID42112143
PMCPMC13156734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.