Dataset Information

Prediction models used in the progression of chronic kidney disease: A scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To provide a review of prediction models that have been used to measure clinical or pathological progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Design

Scoping review.

Data sources

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from the year 2011 to 17th February 2022.

Study selection

All English written studies that are published in peer-reviewed journals in any country, that developed at least a statistical or computational model that predicted the risk of CKD progression.

Data extraction

Eligible studies for full text review were assessed on the methods that were used to predict the progression of CKD. The type of information extracted included: the author(s), title of article, year of publication, study dates, study location, number of participants, study design, predicted outcomes, type of prediction model, prediction variables used, validation assessment, limitations and implications.

Results

From 516 studies, 33 were included for full-text review. A qualitative analysis of the articles was compared following the extracted information. The study populations across the studies were heterogenous and data acquired by the studies were sourced from different levels and locations of healthcare systems. 31 studies implemented supervised models, and 2 studies included unsupervised models. Regardless of the model used, the predicted outcome included measurement of risk of progression towards end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) of related definitions, over given time intervals. However, there is a lack of reporting consistency on details of the development of their prediction models.

Conclusions

Researchers are working towards producing an effective model to provide key insights into the progression of CKD. This review found that cox regression modelling was predominantly used among the small number of studies in the review. This made it difficult to perform a comparison between ML algorithms, more so when different validation methods were used in different cohort types. There needs to be increased investment in a more consistent and reproducible approach for future studies looking to develop risk prediction models for CKD progression.

SUBMITTER: Lim DKE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9321365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is common, and associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and end-stage renal disease, which are potentially preventable through early identification and treatment of individuals at risk. Although risk factors for occurrence and progression of CKD have been identified, their utility for CKD risk stratification through prediction models remains unclear. We critically assessed risk models to predict CKD and its progression, and evaluated their suitability for clinical use.Methods and findingsWe systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase (1 January 1980 to 20 June 2012). Dual review was conducted to identify studies that reported on the development, validation, or impact assessment of a model constructed to predict the occurrence/presence of CKD or progression to advanced stages. Data were extracted on study characteristics, risk predictors, discrimination, calibration, and reclassification performance of models, as well as validation and impact analyses. We included 26 publications reporting on 30 CKD occurrence prediction risk scores and 17 CKD progression prediction risk scores. The vast majority of CKD risk models had acceptable-to-good discriminatory performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve>0.70) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed, but overall was found to be acceptable. Only eight CKD occurrence and five CKD progression risk models have been externally validated, displaying modest-to-acceptable discrimination. Whether novel biomarkers of CKD (circulatory or genetic) can improve prediction largely remains unclear, and impact studies of CKD prediction models have not yet been conducted. Limitations of risk models include the lack of ethnic diversity in derivation samples, and the scarcity of validation studies. The review is limited by the lack of an agreed-on system for rating prediction models, and the difficulty of assessing publication bias.ConclusionsThe development and clinical application of renal risk scores is in its infancy; however, the discriminatory performance of existing tools is acceptable. The effect of using these models in practice is still to be explored.

Project description:Background:Multidisciplinary chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinics improve patient outcomes but their optimal design is unclear. Objective:To perform a scoping review to identify and describe current practices (structure, function) associated with multidisciplinary CKD clinics. Design:Scoping review. Setting:Databases included Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL. Patients:Patients followed in multidisciplinary CKD clinics globally. Measurements:Multidisciplinary CKD clinic composition, entry criteria, follow-up, and outcomes. Methods:We systematically searched the literature to identify randomized controlled trials, non-randomized interventional studies, or observational studies of multidisciplinary CKD clinics defined by an outpatient setting where two or more allied health members (with or without a nephrologist) provided longitudinal care to 50 or more adult or pediatric patients with CKD. Included studies were from 2002 to present. Searches were completed on August 10, 2018. Title, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third. We abstracted data from included studies to summarize multidisciplinary CKD clinic team composition, entry criteria, follow-up, and processes. Results:40 studies (8 randomized controlled trials and 32 non-randomized interventional studies or observational studies) involving 23?230 individuals receiving multidisciplinary CKD care in 12 countries were included. Thirty-eight focused on adults (27 with CKD, 10 incident dialysis patients, one conservative therapy) while two studies focused on adolescents or children with CKD. The multidisciplinary team included a mean of 4.6 (SD 1.5) members consisting of a nephrologist, nurse, dietician, social worker, and pharmacist in 97.4%, 86.8%, 84.2%, 57.9%, and 42.1% of studies respectively. Entry criteria to multidisciplinary CKD clinics ranged from glomerular filtration rates of 20 to 70 mL/min/1.73m2 or CKD stages 1 to 5 without any proteinuria or risk equation-based criteria. Frequency of follow-up was variable by severity of kidney disease. Team member roles and standardized operating procedures were infrequently reported. Limitations:Unstandardized definition of multidisciplinary CKD care, studies limited to CKD defined by glomerular filtration rate, and lack of representation from countries other than Canada, Taiwan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Conclusions:There is heterogeneity in multidisciplinary CKD team composition, entry criteria, follow-up, and processes with inadequate reporting of this complex intervention. Additional research is needed to determine the best model for multidisciplinary CKD clinics. Trial registration:Not applicable.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Nursing home (NH) residents experience a high burden of chronic disease. Chronic disease management (CDM) can be a challenge, as the context of care provision and the way care is provided impact care delivery. This scoping review aimed to identify types of chronic diseases studied in intervention studies in NHs, influential contextual factors addressed by interventions and future CDM research considerations. DESIGN:The scoping review followed guidelines by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien (2010). Six reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. DATA SOURCES:We searched four databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus, in March 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Studies were included if (1) aim of intervention was to improve CDM, (2) intervention incorporated the chronic care model (CCM), (3) included NH residents, (4) analysed the efficacy of the intervention and (5) sample included adults over age 65 years. Studies were limited to English or French language and to those published after 1996, when the CCM was first conceptualised. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Extracted information included the type of chronic disease, the type and number of CCM model components used in the intervention, the method of delivery of the intervention, and outcomes. RESULTS:On completion of the review of 11?917 citations, 13 studies were included. Most interventions targeted residents living with dementia. There was significant heterogeneity noted among designs, outcomes, and type and complexity of intervention components. There was little evaluation of the sustainability of interventions, including feasibility. CONCLUSIONS:Research was heavily focused on management of dementia. The most commonly included CCM components were multidisciplinary care, evidence-based care, coordinated care and clinical information systems. Future research should include subjective and objective outcomes, which are meaningful for NH residents, for common chronic diseases.

Project description:Some patients will develop chronic kidney disease after a hospitalization with acute kidney injury; however, no risk-prediction tools have been developed to identify high-risk patients requiring follow-up.To derive and validate predictive models for progression of acute kidney injury to advanced chronic kidney disease.Data from 2 population-based cohorts of patients with a prehospitalization estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of more than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and who had survived hospitalization with acute kidney injury (defined by a serum creatinine increase during hospitalization > 0.3 mg/dL or > 50% of their prehospitalization baseline), were used to derive and validate multivariable prediction models. The risk models were derived from 9973 patients hospitalized in Alberta, Canada (April 2004-March 2014, with follow-up to March 2015). The risk models were externally validated with data from a cohort of 2761 patients hospitalized in Ontario, Canada (June 2004-March 2012, with follow-up to March 2013).Demographic, laboratory, and comorbidity variables measured prior to discharge.Advanced chronic kidney disease was defined by a sustained reduction in eGFR less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 for at least 3 months during the year after discharge. All participants were followed up for up to 1 year.The participants (mean [SD] age, 66 [15] years in the derivation and internal validation cohorts and 69 [11] years in the external validation cohort; 40%-43% women per cohort) had a mean (SD) baseline serum creatinine level of 1.0 (0.2) mg/dL and more than 20% had stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury. Advanced chronic kidney disease developed in 408 (2.7%) of 9973 patients in the derivation cohort and 62 (2.2%) of 2761 patients in the external validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, 6 variables were independently associated with the outcome: older age, female sex, higher baseline serum creatinine value, albuminuria, greater severity of acute kidney injury, and higher serum creatinine value at discharge. In the external validation cohort, a multivariable model including these 6 variables had a C statistic of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) and improved discrimination and reclassification compared with reduced models that included age, sex, and discharge serum creatinine value alone (integrated discrimination improvement, 2.6%; 95% CI, 1.1%-4.0%; categorical net reclassification index, 13.5%; 95% CI, 1.9%-25.1%) or included age, sex, and acute kidney injury stage alone (integrated discrimination improvement, 8.0%; 95% CI, 5.1%-11.0%; categorical net reclassification index, 79.9%; 95% CI, 60.9%-98.9%).A multivariable model using routine laboratory data was able to predict advanced chronic kidney disease following hospitalization with acute kidney injury. The utility of this model in clinical care requires further research.

Project description:Background:Canadian Indigenous populations experience significantly more chronic kidney disease (CKD) than the general population. Indigenous people who live in rural and remote areas may also have difficulty accessing both information and care for their CKD. Informed decision making about treatment options for advancing kidney disease may be delayed, which can result in poor health outcomes and decreased quality of life. Moreover, Indigenous people may experience marginalization within Western health care systems. Objective:The objective of this scoping review is to identify culturally appropriate and co-developed Indigenous educational tools that will ultimately support CKD learning and end-stage kidney treatment decision making. Design:Scoping Review. Setting:Databases included Embase, CINAHL, Medline (OVID), ERIC, and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology Gray Matters. Study Participants:Community-based Indigenous patients, families, health care workers, and community members. Methods:We systematically reviewed the literature to explore the availability of co-developed Indigenous educational tools and material for CKD treatment options. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers with disagreements resolved through a third. All aspects of this project, including searching the databases were done in consultation with an Indigenous Elder. Results:Only one retrieved article identified a comprehensive CKD tool co-developed by researchers, health care providers, and an Indigenous community. Three themes emerged from the scoping review that may inform characteristics of co-developed tools: cultural appropriateness; appraisal of utility and effectiveness and; content informed by co-development of traditional and Western chronic disease knowledge. Limitations:Consistent with scoping review methodology, the methodological quality of included studies was not assessed. In addition, it was difficult to synthesize the findings from the research and gray literature. Conclusion:Little is known about the co-development of Indigenous educational tools for CKD. Further in-depth understanding is required about how to best engage with Indigenous communities, specifically to co-develop contextualized CKD tools that are acceptable to Indigenous people.Trial registration: Not applicable as this review described secondary data.