Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33102955›Full record

ReviewKidney international reports2020

Quality of Care for Acute Kidney Disease: Current Knowledge Gaps and Future Directions.

Kathleen D Liu, Lui G Forni, Michael Heung, Vin-Cent Wu, John A Kellum, Ravindra L Mehta, Claudio Ronco, Kianoush Kashani, Mitchell H Rosner, Michael Haase and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Kidney international reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

12 authors.

Kathleen D LiuDivision of Nephrology, Departments of Medicine and Anesthesia, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Lui G ForniDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Michael HeungDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Vin-Cent WuDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
John A KellumCenter for Critical Care Nephrology, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ravindra L MehtaDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, San Diego, California, USA.
Claudio RoncoDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Kianoush KashaniDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Mitchell H RosnerDivision of Nephrology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Michael HaaseMedical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg and Diaverum MVZ, Potsdam, Germany.
Jay L KoynerSection of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Acute Disease Quality Initiative Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute kidney injury (AKI) and acute kidney disease (AKD) are common complications in hospitalized patients and are associated with adverse outcomes. Although consensus guidelines have improved the care of patients with AKI and AKD, guidance regarding quality metrics in the care of patients after an episode of AKI or AKD is limited. For example, few patients receive follow-up laboratory testing of kidney function or post-AKI or AKD care through nephrology or other providers. Recently, the Acute Disease Quality Initiative developed a consensus statement regarding quality improvement goals for patients with AKI or AKD specifically highlighting efforts regarding quality and safety of care after hospital discharge after an episode of AKI or AKD. The goal is to use these measures to identify opportunities for improvement that will positively affect outcomes. We recommend that health care systems quantitate the proportion of patients who need and actually receive follow-up care after the index AKI or AKD hospitalization. The intensity and appropriateness of follow-up care should depend on patient characteristics, severity, duration, and course of AKI of AKD, and should evolve as evidence-based guidelines emerge. Quality indicators for discharged patients with dialysis requiring AKI or AKD should be distinct from end-stage renal disease measures. Besides, there should be specific quality indicators for those still requiring dialysis in the outpatient setting after AKI or AKD. Given the limited preexisting data guiding the care of patients after an episode of AKI or AKD, there is ample opportunity to establish quality measures and potentially improve patient care and outcomes. This review will provide specific evidence-based and expert opinion-based guidance for the care of patients with AKI or AKD after hospital discharge.

Indexed as

acute kidney injuryoutcomesqualityrecovery

Identifiers

PMID33102955
PMCPMC7569680

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.