ReviewSAGE open medicine2017
Services aimed at achieving desirable clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus: A narrative review.
Review in SAGE open medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Finerenone: Potential Clinical Application Across the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Disease and Chronic Kidney Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a large number of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes mellitus (DM), and hypertension (HT) but whether the targets on blood pressure (BP) control in patients with DM and/or CKD are met is not clear. This narrative review therefore investigated evidence on services aimed at achieving desirable clinical results in patients with CKD and DM, and HT in Australia. Literature pertaining to pathology diagnosis and management of these patients as well as the complexities in management were considered. This involved evidence from PubMed-listed articles published between 1993 and 2016 including original research studies, focusing on randomised controlled trials and prospective studies where possible, systematic and other review articles, meta- analyses, expert consensus documents and specialist society guidelines, such as those from the National Heart Foundation of Australia, American Diabetes Association, the Department of Health, The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, and The Australasian College of Emergency Medicine. Based on the literature reviewed, it is yet unknown as to how effective programs, such as diabetes inpatient services, endocrine out-patient services, and cardiac rehabilitation services, are at achieving guideline recommendations. It is also not clear how or whether clinicians are encumbered by complexities in their efforts of adhering to DM, HT, and glucose control recommendations, and the potential reasons for clinical inertia. Future studies are needed to ascertain the extent to which required BP and glucose control in patients is achieved, and whether clinical inertia is a barrier.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.