4.4 Article

Female sex reduces the risk of hospital-associated acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis

期刊

BMC NEPHROLOGY
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12882-018-1122-z

关键词

Acute kidney injury; Gender; Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Acute renal failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundFemale sex has been included as a risk factor in models developed to predict the development of AKI. In addition, the commentary to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes Clinical Practice Guideline for AKI concludes that female sex is a risk factor for hospital-acquired AKI. In contrast, a protective effect of female sex has been demonstrated in animal models of ischemic AKI.MethodsTo further explore this issue, we performed a meta-analysis of AKI studies published between January, 1978 and April, 2018 and identified 83 studies reporting sex-stratified data on the incidence of hospital-associated AKI among nearly 240,000,000 patients.ResultsTwenty-eight studies (6,758,124 patients) utilized multivariate analysis to assess risk factors for hospital-associated AKI and provided sex-stratified ORs. Meta-analysis of this cohort showed that the risk of developing hospital-associated AKI was significantly greater in men than in women (OR 1.23 (1.11,1.36). Since AKI is not a single disease but instead represents a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by an acute reduction in renal function, we performed subgroup meta-analyses. The association of male sex with AKI was strongest among studies of patients who underwent non-cardiac surgery. Male sex was also associated with AKI in studies which included unselected hospitalized patients and in studies of critically ill patients who received care in an intensive care unit. In contrast, cardiac surgery-associated AKI and radiocontrast-induced AKI showed no sexual dimorphism.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis contradicts the established belief that female sex confers a greater risk of AKI and instead suggests a protective role.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据