ArticlePloS one2025
Disparities in chronic kidney disease burden estimates: From different sources, definitions, and equations.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study provides updated epidemiological descriptions of chronic kidney disease (CKD), yet the discrepancies between its estimates and those from other sources remain unclear. Furthermore, attention is required due to the specificity of standard and computational tool for glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We aimed to evaluate CKD burden from various sources, definitions, and equations.
methodsThis study analyzed CKD prevalence among US adults from 1999 to 2018, using data from the GBD study 2021 and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We calculated average prevalence and estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) for the total population and by sex. The analysis was repeated using different definitions and equations. Additionally, a literature review was conducted to extend the comparison to a global scale.
resultsAmong US adults, the annual average estimates from the GBD and NHANES were similar, while long-term trends diverged, with disparities becoming more evident in sex-specific subgroups. Removal of racial coefficients led to an increase in the estimated CKD prevalence in Black individuals, while a decrease was observed in White individuals. The EKFC equation yielded the highest average and single-cycle CKD prevalence. Applying age-adapted thresholds reduced the prevalence of low estimated GFR (eGFR<threshold(s)) by approximately 50%, with numbers of older women reclassified into non-CKD categories.
conclusionsThis study highlights the differences in estimated CKD prevalence across various sources. Age-adjusted thresholds and the flexible EKFC equation hold promise for future applications in both epidemiological research and clinical practice.
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.