4.6 Review

CKD of Uncertain Etiology: A Systematic Review

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.07500715

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Kidney Fund Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Fellowship
  2. National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases of National Institutes of Health [R01DK93938, R34DK102166, P30DK096493]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives Epidemics of CKD of uncertain etiology (CKDu) are emerging around the world. Highlighting common risk factors for CKD of uncertain etiology across various regions and populations may be important for health policy and public health responses. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases to identify published studies on CKDu. The search was generated in January of 2015; no language or date limits were used. We used a vote-counting method to evaluate exposures across all studies. Results We identified 1607 articles, of which 26 met inclusion criteria. Eighteen (69%) were conducted in known CKDu endemic countries: Sri Lanka (38%), Nicaragua (19%), and El Salvador (12%). The other studies were from India, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Sweden, Tunisia, Tanzania, and the United States. Heavy metals, heat stress, and dietary exposures were reported across all geographic regions. In south Asia, family history, agrochemical use, and heavy metal exposures were reported most frequently, whereas altitude and temperature were reported only in studies from Central America. Across all regions, CKDu was most frequently associated with a family history of CKDu, agricultural occupation, men, middle age, snake bite, and heavy metal exposure. Conclusions Studies examining etiologies of CKDu have reported many exposures that are heterogeneous and vary by region. To identify etiologies of CKDu, designing consistent and comparative multisite studies across high risk populations may help elucidate the importance of region specific versus global risk factors.

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

4.6
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