Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34583929›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021

Performance of prediction models for nephropathy in people with type 2 diabetes: systematic review and external validation study.

Roderick C Slieker, Amber A W A van der Heijden, Moneeza K Siddiqui, Marlous Langendoen-Gort, Giel Nijpels, Ron Herings, Talitha L Feenstra, Karel G M Moons, Samira Bell, Petra J Elders and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Roderick C SliekerDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands r.slieker@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-0961-9152
Amber A W A van der HeijdenDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Moneeza K SiddiquiDivision of Population Health and Genomics, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Marlous Langendoen-GortDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Giel NijpelsDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ron HeringsDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Talitha L FeenstraGroningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Karel G M MoonsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Samira BellDivision of Population Health and Genomics, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Petra J EldersDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Leen M 't HartDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Joline W J BeulensDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Dundee · GBUtrecht University · NLPharmo Institute · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify and assess the quality and accuracy of prognostic models for nephropathy and to validate these models in external cohorts of people with type 2 diabetes.

designSystematic review and external validation. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies describing the development of a model to predict the risk of nephropathy, applicable to people with type 2 diabetes.

methodsScreening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate. Eligible models were externally validated in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort (n=11 450) for the same outcomes for which they were developed. Risks of nephropathy were calculated and compared with observed risk over 2, 5, and 10 years of follow-up. Model performance was assessed based on intercept adjusted calibration and discrimination (Harrell's C statistic).

results41 studies included in the systematic review reported 64 models, 46 of which were developed in a population with diabetes and 18 in the general population including diabetes as a predictor. The predicted outcomes included albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease (general population), and end stage renal disease. The reported apparent discrimination of the 46 models varied considerably across the different predicted outcomes, from 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.64) to 0.99 (not available) for the models developed in a diabetes population and from 0.59 (not available) to 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) for the models developed in the general population. Calibration was reported in 31 of the 41 studies, and the models were generally well calibrated. 21 of the 64 retrieved models were externally validated in the Hoorn DCS cohort for predicting risk of albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease, with considerable variation in performance across prediction horizons and models. For all three outcomes, however, at least two models had C statistics >0.8, indicating excellent discrimination. In a secondary external validation in GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland), models developed for diabetic kidney disease outperformed those for chronic kidney disease. Models were generally well calibrated across all three prediction horizons.

conclusionsThis study identified multiple prediction models to predict albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease, and end stage renal disease. In the external validation, discrimination and calibration for albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease varied considerably across prediction horizons and models. For each outcome, however, specific models showed good discrimination and calibration across the three prediction horizons, with clinically accessible predictors, making them applicable in a clinical setting. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020192831.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision RulesAgedAlbuminuriaCalibrationDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic NephropathiesFemaleHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRenal Insufficiency, ChronicReproducibility of ResultsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID34583929
PMCPMC8477272
OpenAlexW3204398078

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.