ReviewSage open chronic disease
Effects of correcting metabolic acidosis in chronic kidney disease patients: An umbrella review.
Review in Sage open chronic disease. 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
Metabolic acidosis is a frequent complication when chronic kidney disease (CKD) develops, plus it is linked to adverse outcomes such as muscle wasting, inflammation, and progression of kidney disease. This article is intended to evaluate how correcting metabolic acidosis affects adult CKD patients via summarizing evidence from systematic reviews with meta-analyses. We conducted an umbrella review. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses assessing alkali therapy in CKD patients were included. Methodological quality was assessed using a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) certainty of evidence approach was used for rating the certainty of evidence. Twelve meta-analyses that were published between 2007 and 2024 were analyzed, and these included 169 associations, out of which 128 remained after excluding single-study outcomes. Only 8 (6.2%) of these associations were supported by high-certainty evidence, which included a slower decline in glomerular filtration rate, reduced hospitalization rates, lower diastolic blood pressure, increased serum bicarbonate after short-term therapy, and reduced use of β-blockers and vasodilators. However, most associations (52.3%) were rated as having very low certainty. Less than 10% of the associations analyzed in the selected systematic reviews have high certainty of evidence, which underscores a significant gap between common clinical practices and the strength of the supporting evidence. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42024548458.
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.