The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Long-term risk of adverse outcomes after acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies using consensus definitions of exposure
Open accessAbstract
Reliable estimates of the long-term outcomes of acute kidney injury (AKI) are needed to inform clinical practice and guide allocation of health care resources. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the association between AKI and chronic kidney disease (CKD), end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and death. Systematic searches were performed through EMBASE, MEDLINE, and grey literature sources to identify cohort studies in hospitalized adults that used standardized definitions for AKI, included a non-exposed comparator, and followed patients for at least 1 year. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to pool risk estimates; subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity. Of 4973 citations, 82 studies (comprising 2,017,437 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Common sources of bias included incomplete reporting of outcome data, missing biochemical values, and inadequate adjustment for confounders. Individuals with AKI were at increased risk of new or progressive CKD (HR 2.67, 95% CI 1.99-3.58; 17.76 versus 7.59 cases per 100 person-years), ESKD (HR 4.81, 95% CI 3.04-7.62; 0.47 versus 0.08 cases per 100 person-years), and death (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.61-2.02; 13.19 versus 7.26 deaths per 100 person-years). A gradient of risk across increasing AKI stages was demonstrated for all outcomes. For mortality, the magnitude of risk was also modified by clinical setting, baseline kidney function, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. These findings establish the poor long-term outcomes of AKI while highlighting the importance of injury severity and clinical setting in the estimation of risk.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Cited by
Ronco, C., Bellomo, R., & Kellum, J. A. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32563-2 · Cited by 1,910
Self-citationTong, S. Y. C., Lye, D. C., Yahav, D., Sud, A., Robinson, J. O., Nelson, J., Archuleta, S., Roberts, M. A., Cass, A., Paterson, D. L., et al. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.0103 · Cited by 279
Zhang, Y., Tang, T., Wang, B., Wen, Y., Feng, Y., Yin, Q., Jiang, W., Zhang, Y., Li, Z., Wu, M., et al. (2024) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202309752 · Cited by 72
Wang, Y., & Li, Q. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-97269-9 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- See, E. J., Jayasinghe, K., Glassford, N., Bailey, M., Johnson, D. W., Polkinghorne, K. R., Toussaint, N. D., & Bellomo, R.
- Venue
- Kidney International
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 160-172
- ISSN
- 0085-2538 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2900460035
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long-term risk of adverse outcomes after acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies using consensus definitions of exposure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.kint.2018.08.036
- The paper
- See, E. J., Jayasinghe, K., Glassford, N., Bailey, M., Johnson, D. W., Polkinghorne, K. R., Toussaint, N. D., & Bellomo, R. (2019). Long-term risk of adverse outcomes after acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies using consensus definitions of exposure. Kidney International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2018.08.036
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.