SynthesisBMC nephrology2025
Association between high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and diabetic nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic value of tubular and glomerular biomarkers across different stages of kidney injury in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Observational
- Progress in mechanistic and clinical translational research of endothelin A receptor antagonists in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease: a narrative review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- High-sensitivity C-reactive protein and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetic foot and osteoporosis: evidence from a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic nephropathy (DN) is a major complication of diabetes, driven by inflammation and progressive kidney damage. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), a marker of systemic inflammation, has been linked to DN progression, but study findings are inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between hs-CRP levels and DN risk.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase from inception to July 22, 2024, for observational studies examining hs-CRP and DN. Although IL-6 and ESR were initially considered for analysis, they were excluded from the meta-analysis due to insufficient data for pooling. Fifteen studies involving 16,324 participants were included. A random-effects model pooled effect sizes, with heterogeneity assessed using the I² statistic and Cochran Q test. Subgroup analyses explored variations by study design and sample size.
resultsFrom 8312 citations, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 16,324 participants from diverse geographic locations. Meta-analysis of the 15 studies showed that elevated hs-CRP levels (above vs. below a clinical threshold of 2.5 mg/L) were associated with 65% increased odds of DN (OR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.36-1.99, P = 0.002), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 79.4%, P < 0.001).
conclusionElevated hs-CRP levels are significantly associated with increased DN risk, supporting its clinical utility for risk stratification in diabetic patients and its relevance for guiding future research into anti-inflammatory therapies. However, high heterogeneity, likely due to differences in study design, population characteristics, and measurement methods, limits the generalizability of these findings. Future research should clarify causal mechanisms and validate hs-CRP's role in clinical decision-making for DN prevention. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: It is not applicable.
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.