Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 526

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Secondary analysis of the CHOIR trial epoetin-α dose and achieved hemoglobin outcomes

Open access
Szczech, Lynda A., Barnhart, Huiman X., Inrig, Jula K., Reddan, Donal N., Sapp, Shelly, Califf, Robert M., Patel, Uptal D., Singh, Ajay K.·2008·Kidney International

Abstract

Trials of anemia correction in chronic kidney disease have found either no benefit or detrimental outcomes of higher targets. We did a secondary analysis of patients with chronic kidney disease enrolled in the Correction of Hemoglobin in the Outcomes in Renal Insufficiency trial to measure the potential for competing benefit and harm from achieved hemoglobin and epoetin dose trials. In the 4 month analysis, significantly more patients in the high-hemoglobin compared to the low-hemoglobin arm were unable to achieve target hemoglobin and required high-dose epoetin-α. In unadjusted analyses, the inability to achieve a target hemoglobin and high-dose epoetin-α were each significantly associated with increased risk of a primary endpoint (death, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure or stroke). In adjusted models, high-dose epoetin-α was associated with a significant increased hazard of a primary endpoint but the risk associated with randomization to the high hemoglobin arm did not suggest a possible mediating effect of higher target via dose. Similar results were seen in the 9 month analysis. Our study demonstrates that patients achieving their target had better outcomes than those who did not; and among subjects who achieved their randomized target, no increased risk associated with the higher hemoglobin goal was detected. Prospective studies are needed to confirm this relationship and determine safe dosing algorithms for patients unable to achieve target hemoglobin.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ki.2008.295

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 526

Metadata

Authors
Szczech, L. A., Barnhart, H. X., Inrig, J. K., Reddan, D. N., Sapp, S., Califf, R. M., Patel, U. D., & Singh, A. K.
Venue
Kidney International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
74
Issue
6
Pages
791-798
ISSN
0085-2538 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005973637
Cited by
526
References
3
FWCI
28.62
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: Secondary analysis of the CHOIR trial epoetin-α dose and achieved hemoglobin outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ki.2008.295
The paper
Szczech, L. A., Barnhart, H. X., Inrig, J. K., Reddan, D. N., Sapp, S., Califf, R. M., Patel, U. D., & Singh, A. K. (2008). Secondary analysis of the CHOIR trial epoetin-α dose and achieved hemoglobin outcomes. Kidney International. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2008.295

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.