| 1. |
- Bruck, Katharina, et al.
(författare)
-
Methodology used in studies reporting chronic kidney disease prevalence : a systematic literature review
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0931-0509 .- 1460-2385. ; 30:S4, s. 6-16
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background. Many publications report the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the general population. Comparisons across studies are hampered as CKD prevalence estimations are influenced by study population characteristics and laboratory methods. Methods. For this systematic review, two researchers independently searched PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all original research articles that were published between 1 January 2003 and 1 November 2014 reporting the prevalence of CKD in the European adult general population. Data on study methodology and reporting of CKD prevalence results were independently extracted by two researchers. Results. We identified 82 eligible publications and included 48 publications of individual studies for the data extraction. There was considerable variation in population sample selection. The majority of studies did not report the sampling frame used, and the response ranged from 10 to 87%. With regard to the assessment of kidney function, 67% used a Jaffe assay, whereas 13% used the enzymatic assay for creatinine determination. Isotope dilution mass spectrometry calibration was used in 29%. The CKD-EPI (52%) and MDRD (75%) equations were most often used to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). CKD was defined as estimated GFR (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in 92% of studies. Urinary markers of CKD were assessed in 60% of the studies. CKD prevalence was reported by sex and age strata in 54 and 50% of the studies, respectively. In publications with a primary objective of reporting CKD prevalence, 39% reported a 95% confidence interval. Conclusions. The findings from this systematic review showed considerable variation in methods for sampling the general population and assessment of kidney function across studies reporting CKD prevalence. These results are utilized to provide recommendations to help optimize both the design and the reporting of future CKD prevalence studies, which will enhance comparability of study results.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bruck, Katharina, et al.
(författare)
-
CKD Prevalence Varies across the European General Population
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. - 1046-6673 .- 1533-3450. ; 27:7, s. 2135-2147
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- CKD prevalence estimation is central to CKD management and prevention planning at the population level. This study estimated CKD prevalence in the European adult general population and investigated international variation in CKD prevalence by age, sex, and presence of diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. We collected data from 19 general-population studies from 13 European countries. CKD stages 1-5 was defined as eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), as calculated by the CKD-Epidemiology Collaboration equation, or albuminuria >30 mg/g, and CKD stages 3-5 was defined as eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). CKD prevalence was age- and sex-standardized to the population of the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU27). We found considerable differences in both CKD stages 1-5 and CKD stages 3-5 prevalence across European study populations. The adjusted CKD stages 1-5 prevalence varied between 3.31% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.30% to 3.33%) in Norway and 17.3% (95% Cl, 16.5% to 18.1%) in northeast Germany. The adjusted CKD stages 3-5 prevalence varied between 1.0% (95% CI, 0.7% to 1.3%) in central Italy and 5.9% (95% CI, 5.2% to 6.6%) in northeast Germany. The variation in CKD prevalence stratified by diabetes, hypertension, and obesity status followed the same pattern as the overall prevalence. In conclusion, this large-scale attempt to carefully characterize CKD prevalence in Europe identified substantial variation in CKD prevalence that appears to be due to factors other than the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.
|
|
