Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34466554›Full record

ReviewGalen medical journal2020

A Systematic Review of Screening Tests for Chronic Kidney Disease: An Accuracy Analysis.

Fatemeh Keshvari-Shad, Sakineh Hajebrahimi, Maria Pilar Laguna Pes, Alireza Mahboub-Ahari, Mohammad Nouri, Farshad Seyednejad, Mahmood Yousefi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Galen medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Biomaterials for biomarker imaging and detection.Journal of advanced research · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

7 authors.

Fatemeh Keshvari-ShadDepartment of Health Economics, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sceinecs, Tabriz, Iran.
Sakineh HajebrahimiResearch Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Urology Department, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Maria Pilar Laguna PesDepartment of Urology Istanbul Medipol University Istanbul, Turkey.
Alireza Mahboub-AhariDepartment of Health Economics, Iranian Evidence-Based Medicine Center of Excellence, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Mohammad NouriDepartment of Biochemistry and Clinical Laboratories, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Farshad SeyednejadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Madani Hospital, Tabriz Medical University, Tabriz, Iran.
Mahmood YousefiDepartment of Health Economics, Iranian Center of Excellence in Health Management, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review was conducted to assess the diagnostic accuracy of chronic kidney disease screening tests in the general population. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library and ProQuest databases were searched for English-language publications up to November 2016. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted study data in standardized tables. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of all available screening methods were identified through included studies. Ten out of 1349 screened records included for final analysis. Sensitivities of the dipstick test with a cutoff value of trace were ranged from 37.1% to 69.4% and specificities from 93.7% to 97.3% for the detection of ACR>30 mg/g. The diagnostic sensitivities of the UAC>10 mg/dL testing was shown to vary from 40% to 87%, and specificities ranged from 75% to 96%. While the sensitivities of ACR were fluctuating between 74% and 90%, likewise the specificities were between 77% and 88%. Sensitivities for C-G, Grubb and Larsson equations were 98.9%, 86.2%, and 70.1% respectively. In the meantime the study showed specificities of 84.8%, 84.2% and 90.5% respectively for these equations. Individual studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of target populations, type of screening tests, thresholds used to detect CKD and variations in design. Results pointed to the superiority of UAC and dipstick over the other tests in terms of all parameters involved. The diversity of methods and thresholds for detection of CKD, necessitate considering the cost parameter along with the effectiveness of tests to scale-up an efficient strategy.

Indexed as

Chronic Kidney DiseaseScreeningSensitivitySpecificitySystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID34466554
PMCPMC8344133

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.