4.6 Article

A framework and key research questions in AKI diagnosis and staging in different environments

Journal

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04851107

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) is common worldwide, and associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization. The RIFLE system of staging AKI correlates with survival in AKI in several settings. A similar AKI definition and staging system that also incorporates lesser degrees of serum creatinine elevation was proposed at the inaugural Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) meeting in 2005. At the Second AKIN meeting in Vancouver, Canada in September 2006, our group developed a research agenda that would test the utility of these diagnostic and staging criteria to predict patient outcomes in a variety of clinical settings and patient groups. Design, setting, participants & measurements: Three-day, international, consensus conference. A multidisciplinary stake-holder committee was divided into work groups. Recommendations for clinical practice and for future research were developed by the committee as an iterative process. This procedure consisted of a literature review phase and focus group interactions with presentations to the entire committee. Results: We first proposed a conceptual framework of disease that describes a series of AKI stages, antecedents and outcomes, and allows a description of research recommendations based on transition between AKI stages. We further proposed methods for testing of the definition and development of research questions to establish the utility of new biomarkers for the diagnosis and staging of AKI and associated illnesses. Conclusions: Retrospective studies should be conducted to initiate the process of validating the AKIN definition of AKI, followed by comprehensive prospective studies that incorporate sampling for emerging AKI biomarkers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available