ArticleKidney medicine2026
External Validation and Recalibration of a Risk Calculator for Major Bleeding After Diagnostic Kidney Biopsy.
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.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.