ReviewEClinicalMedicine2025
A methodology for determining dosing recommendations for anticancer drugs in patients with reduced kidney function.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aligning kidney function assessment in patients with cancer to global practices in internal medicine.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
- Integrating International Consensus Guidelines for Anticancer Drug Dosing in Kidney Dysfunction (ADDIKD) into everyday practice.EClinicalMedicine · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reduced kidney function (or kidney dysfunction) is commonly an exclusion criterion for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer. Consequently, high quality evidence for anticancer drug dosing in reduced kidney function is limited and no internationally agreed guidelines exist to inform prescribing decisions in this population. A methodology for guideline development was applied which did not require availability of RCTs but used critical appraisal of existing observational literature and group consensus. An international multidisciplinary working group (n = 38) established consensus recommendations in two parts to form the International Consensus Guideline on Anticancer Drug Dosing in Kidney Dysfunction (ADDIKD). The approach enabled virtual participation worldwide. In Part 1 we developed a standardised approach for assessment and classification of kidney function in patients with cancer using global nephrology standards and working group expertise. Part 2 involved a comprehensive literature search of 59 anticancer drugs followed by a critical appraisal of the evidence certainty through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process and development of dosing recommendations in reduced kidney function. Key external stakeholders (n = 9) invited expert contributors (n = 25), and the working group participated in virtual interactive workshops to vote on the acceptability of these recommendations. The participants were provided with evaluation of the literature, and they engaged in several rounds of virtual discussion (involving robustness of the evidence behind recommendations and their real-world application) and anonymous consensus voting. Adapting the ADDIKD guideline development process to a virtual format enabled engagement with a very broad base of specialised international experts especially during the global pandemic. Combining GRADE methodology with consensus-building approaches was an effective method of producing recommendations (in an area lacking RCTs) by merging critical review of the literature with expert opinion and clinical practice. Funding: Development of the ADDIKD guideline is funded by the Cancer Institute NSW as part of the NSW Government and received no funding from external commercial sources.
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.