Evidence mapPaperPMID 30305035Full record

SynthesisBMC nephrology2018

Diagnosis and management of non-dialysis chronic kidney disease in ambulatory care: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

Gesine F C Weckmann, Sylvia Stracke, Annekathrin Haase, Jacob Spallek, Fabian Ludwig, Aniela Angelow, Jetske M Emmelkamp, Maria Mahner, Jean-François Chenot

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC nephrology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Gesine F C WeckmannDepartment of General Practice, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 6, 17475, Greifswald, Germany. allgemeinmedizin@uni-greifswald.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2117-2154
Sylvia StrackeDepartment of Internal Medicine A, Nephrology Dialysis and Hypertension, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Annekathrin HaaseDepartment of General Practice, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 6, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Jacob SpallekDepartment of Public Health, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Senftenberg, Germany.
Fabian LudwigDepartment of General Practice, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 6, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Aniela AngelowDepartment of General Practice, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 6, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Jetske M EmmelkampDepartment II - Cardiology, Clinic for Internal Medicine, Pulmonology and General Internal Medicine, DRK-Krankenhaus Teterow, Teterow, Germany.
Maria MahnerDepartment of General Practice, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 6, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Jean-François ChenotDepartment of General Practice, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 6, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is age-dependent and has a high prevalence in the general population. Most patients are managed in ambulatory care. This systematic review provides an updated overview of quality and content of international clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management of non-dialysis CKD relevant to patients in ambulatory care.

methodsWe identified guidelines published from 2012-to March 2018 in guideline portals, databases and by manual search. Methodological quality was assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Recommendations were extracted and evaluated.

resultsEight hundred fifty-two publications were identified, 9 of which were eligible guidelines. Methodological quality ranged from 34 to 77%, with domains "scope and purpose" and "clarity of presentation" attaining highest and "applicability" lowest scores. Guidelines were similar in recommendations on CKD definition, screening of patients with diabetes and hypertension, blood pressure targets and referral of patients with progressive or stage G4 CKD. Definition of high risk groups and recommended tests in newly diagnosed CKD varied.

conclusionsGuidelines quality ranged from moderate to high. Guidelines generally agreed on management of patients with high risk or advanced CKD, but varied in regarding the range of recommended measurements, the need for referrals to nephrology, monitoring intervals and comprehensiveness. More research is needed on efficient management of patients with low risk of CKD progression to end stage renal disease.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareDisease ProgressionHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality Assurance, Health CareReferral and ConsultationRenal Insufficiency, ChronicRisk FactorsChronic kidney diseaseClinical practice guidelineManagementSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30305035
PMCPMC6180496

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.