SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Risk prediction models for cognitive impairment in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Prediction models for cognitive impairment offer significant advantages in public health preventive strategies in high-risk chronic kidney disease populations, but their methodological quality and applicability remain unclear. The aims of this study were to systematically review and critically appraise the existing prediction models for cognitive impairment in chronic kidney disease. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, SinoMed, and China Science and Technology Journal Database were searched from inception to 12 October 2025. The prediction model risk of bias assessment tool was used for quality assessment, and the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modeling studies was used for data extraction. A narrative synthesis was performed to summarize the characteristics, performance, and risk of bias of existing models. Subgroup analyses were performed stratified by outcome definitions, CKD population, and cognitive assessment tools. Results: A total of 5,972 studies were identified, ultimately including 17 models for three outcomes: cognitive impairment (52.9%), mild cognitive impairment (11.8%), and cognitive frailty (35.3%). The reported prevalence ranged from 12.8 to 77.9% for cognitive impairment, around 50% for mild cognitive impairment, and 14.2-25.8% for cognitive frailty. Most models (58.8%) were developed in hemodialysis populations. Fifteen studies were internally validated, and 7 were externally validated. For internal validation, the AUC of cognitive impairment models ranged from 0.745 to 0.918, mild cognitive impairment models from 0.926 to 0.928, and cognitive frailty models from 0.842 to 0.945. For external validation, the AUC of cognitive impairment models ranged from 0.752 to 0.899, the mild cognitive impairment model was 0.897, and cognitive frailty models ranged from 0.832 to 0.904. All studies were rated as high risk of bias, mainly due to methodological problems in the analysis domain, with great concerns regarding applicability in 13 studies. Conclusion: Current research on prediction models for cognitive impairment in chronic kidney disease remains in the developing stage, with heterogeneous outcome definitions and all studies at high risk of bias. Most studies are limited by methodological shortcomings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251007577, Identifier CRD420251007577.
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.