Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) can affect hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with estimates ranging between 0.5% and 40%. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting incidence, mortality and risk factors for AKI in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Methods: We systematically searched 11 electronic databases until 29 May 2020 for studies in English reporting original data on AKI and kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Incidences of AKI and KRT and risk ratios for mortality associated with AKI were pooled using generalized linear mixed and random-effects models. Potential risk factors for AKI were assessed using meta-regression. Incidences were stratified by geographic location and disease severity.Results: A total of 3042 articles were identified, of which 142 studies were included, with 49 048 hospitalized COVID-19 patients including 5152 AKI events. The risk of bias of included studies was generally low. The pooled incidence of AKI was 28.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.8–39.5] among hospitalized COVID-19 patients from the USA and Europe (20 studies) and 5.5% (95% CI 4.1–7.4) among patients from China (62 studies), whereas the pooled incidence of KRT was 7.7% (95% CI 5.1–11.4; 18 studies) and 2.2% (95% CI 1.5–3.3; 52 studies), respectively. Among patients admitted to the intensive care unit, the incidence of KRT was 20.6% (95% CI 15.7–26.7; 38 studies). Meta-regression analyses showed that age, male sex, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and chronic kidney disease were associated with the occurrence of AKI; in itself, AKI was associated with an increased risk of mortality, with a pooled risk ratio of 4.6 (95% CI 3.3–6.5).Conclusions: AKI and KRT are common events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with estimates varying across geographic locations. Additional studies are needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and optimal treatment of AKI in these patients.

Background: Prediction tools that identify chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients at a high risk of developing kidney failure have the potential for great clinical value, but limited uptake. The aim of the current study is to systematically review all available models predicting kidney failure in CKD patients, organize empirical evidence on their validity and ultimately provide guidance in the interpretation and uptake of these tools. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles were sequentially screened for inclusion by two independent researchers. Data on study design, model development and performance were extracted. The risk of bias and clinical usefulness were assessed and combined in order to provide recommendations on which models to use. Results: Of 2183 screened studies, a total of 42 studies were included in the current review. Most studies showed high discriminatory capacity and the included predictors had large overlap. Overall, the risk of bias was high. Slightly less than half the studies (48%) presented enough detail for the use of their prediction tool in practice and few models were externally validated. Conclusions: The current systematic review may be used as a tool to select the most appropriate and robust prognostic model for various settings. Although some models showed great potential, many lacked clinical relevance due to being developed in a prevalent patient population with a wide range of disease severity. Future research efforts should focus on external validation and impact assessment in clinically relevant patient populations.

Over the past few years, a large number of prediction models have been published, often of poor methodological quality. Seemingly objective and straightforward, prediction models provide a risk estimate for the outcome of interest, usually based on readily available clinical information. Yet, using models of substandard methodological rigour, especially without external validation, may result in incorrect risk estimates and consequently misclassification. To assess and combat bias in prediction research the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST) was published in 2019. This risk of bias (ROB) tool includes four domains and 20 signalling questions highlighting methodological flaws, and provides guidance in assessing the applicability of the model. In this paper, the PROBAST will be discussed, along with an in‐depth review of two commonly encountered pitfalls in prediction modelling that may induce bias: overfitting and composite endpoints. We illustrate the prevalence of potential bias in prediction models with a meta‐review of 50 systematic reviews that used the PROBAST to appraise their included studies, thus including 1510 different studies on 2104 prediction models. All domains showed an unclear or high ROB; these results were markedly stable over time, highlighting the urgent need for attention on bias in prediction research. This article aims to do just that by providing (1) the clinician with tools to evaluate the (methodological) quality of a clinical prediction model, (2) the researcher working on a review with methods to appraise the included models, and (3) the researcher developing a model with suggestions to improve model quality.

Background: Reviews of qualitative studies allow for deeper understanding of concepts and findings beyond the single qualitative studies. Concerns on study reporting quality led to the publication of the COREQ-guidelines for qualitative studies in 2007, followed by the ENTREQ-guidelines for qualitative reviews in 2012. The aim of this meta-review is to: 1) investigate the uptake of the COREQ- and ENTREQ- checklists in qualitative reviews; and 2) compare the quality of reporting of the primary qualitative studies included within these reviews prior- and post COREQ-publication. Methods: Reviews were searched on 02-Sept-2020 and categorized as (1) COREQ- or (2) ENTREQ-using, (3) using both, or (4) non-COREQ/ENTREQ. Proportions of usage were calculated over time. COREQ-scores of the primary studies included in these reviews were compared prior- and post COREQ-publication using T-test with Bonferroni correction. Results: 1.695 qualitative reviews were included (222 COREQ, 369 ENTREQ, 62 both COREQ/ENTREQ and 1.042 non-COREQ/ENTREQ), spanning 12 years (2007–2019) demonstrating an exponential publication rate. The uptake of the ENTREQ in reviews is higher than the COREQ (respectively 28% and 17%), and increases over time. COREQ-scores could be extracted from 139 reviews (including 2.775 appraisals). Reporting quality improved following the COREQ-publication with 13 of the 32 signalling questions showing improvement; the average total score increased from 15.15 to 17.74 (p-value < 0.001). Conclusion: The number of qualitative reviews increased exponentially, but the uptake of the COREQ and ENTREQ was modest overall. Primary qualitative studies show a positive trend in reporting quality, which may have been facilitated by the publication of the COREQ.

Multiple risk scores to predict ischaemic stroke (IS) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have been developed. This study aims to systematically review these scores, their validations and updates, assess their methodological quality, and calculate pooled estimates of the predictive performance. We searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies developing, validating, or updating risk scores for IS in AF patients. Methodological quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). To assess discrimination, pooled c-statistics were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. We identified 19 scores, which were validated and updated once or more in 70 and 40 studies, respectively, including 329 validations and 76 updates—nearly all on the CHA₂DS₂-VASc and CHADS₂. Pooled c-statistics were calculated among 6 267 728 patients and 359 373 events of IS. For the CHA₂DS₂-VASc and CHADS₂, pooled c-statistics were 0.644 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.635–0.653] and 0.658 (0.644–0.672), respectively. Better discriminatory abilities were found in the newer risk scores, with the modified-CHADS₂ demonstrating the best discrimination [c-statistic 0.715 (0.674–0.754)]. Updates were found for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc and CHADS₂ only, showing improved discrimination. Calibration was reasonable but available for only 17 studies. The PROBAST indicated a risk of methodological bias in all studies. Nineteen risk scores and 76 updates are available to predict IS in patients with AF. The guideline-endorsed CHA₂DS₂-VASc shows inferior discriminative abilities compared with newer scores. Additional external validations and data on calibration are required before considering the newer scores in clinical practice. ID CRD4202161247 (PROSPERO).

Rationale & Objective: Explore priorities related to outcomes and barriers of adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) regarding person centred care and care planning. Study design: Systematic review of qualitative studies. Search Strategy & Sources: In July 2018 six bibliographic databases, and reference lists of included articles were searched for qualitative studies that included adults with CKD stages 1–5, not on dialysis or conservative management, without a previous kidney transplantation. Analytical Approach: Three independent reviewers extracted and inductively coded data using thematic synthesis. Reporting quality was assessed using the COREQ and the review reported according to PRISMA and ENTREQ statements. Results: Forty-six studies involving 1493 participants were eligible. The period after diagnosis of CKD is characterized by feelings of uncertainty, social isolation, financial burden, resentment and fear of the unknown. Patients show interest in ways to return to normality and remain in control of their health in order to avoid further deterioration of kidney function. However, necessary information is often unavailable or incomprehensible. Although patients and healthcare professionals share the predominant interest of whether or not dialysis or transplantation is necessary, patients value many more outcomes that are often unrecognized by their healthcare professionals. We identified 4 themes with 6 subthemes that summarize these findings: ‘pursuing normality and control’ (‘pursuing normality’; ‘a search for knowledge’); ‘prioritizing outcomes’ (‘reaching kidney failure’; ‘experienced health’; ‘social life’; ‘work and economic productivity’); ‘predicting the future’; and ‘realising what matters’. Reporting quality was moderate for most included studies. Limitations: Exclusion of non-English articles. Conclusions: The realisation that patients’ priorities do not match those of the healthcare professionals, in combination with the prognostic ambiguity, confirms fatalistic perceptions of not being in control when living with CKD. These insights may contribute to greater understanding of patients’ perspectives and a more person-centred approach in healthcare prioritization and care planning within CKD care.