The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 20 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Effects of Losartan on Renal and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease. Interruption of the renin-angiotensin system slows the progression of renal disease in patients with type 1 diabetes, but similar data are not available for patients with type 2, the most common form of diabetes. We assessed the role of the angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. METHODS: A total of 1513 patients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind study comparing losartan (50 to 100 mg once daily) with placebo, both taken in addition to conventional antihypertensive treatment (calcium-channel antagonists, diuretics, alpha-blockers, beta-blockers, and centrally acting agents), for a mean of 3.4 years. The primary outcome was the composite of a doubling of the base-line serum creatinine concentration, end-stage renal disease, or death. Secondary end points included a composite of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular causes, proteinuria, and the rate of progression of renal disease. RESULTS: A total of 327 patients in the losartan group reached the primary end point, as compared with 359 in the placebo group (risk reduction, 16 percent; P=0.02). Losartan reduced the incidence of a doubling of the serum creatinine concentration (risk reduction, 25 percent; P=0.006) and end-stage renal disease (risk reduction, 28 percent; P=0.002) but had no effect on the rate of death. The benefit exceeded that attributable to changes in blood pressure. The composite of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular causes was similar in the two groups, although the rate of first hospitalization for heart failure was significantly lower with losartan (risk reduction, 32 percent; P=0.005). The level of proteinuria declined by 35 percent with losartan (P<0.001 for the comparison with placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Losartan conferred significant renal benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, and it was generally well tolerated.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
35 Own result · 16 Own method · 13 Own interpretation · 7 No full text of the sources · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported so far · 1 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In this regard, it should be noted that in related studies in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, 1,28,29 the benefits of captopril or irbesartan were not tested in the presence of concurrent calcium-channel-antagonist therapy.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] source
- Supportedcites [28] source
The Randomization and Treatment Plan states that calcium-channel blockers were discontinued before screening and excluded as additional antihypertensive treatment. Irbesartan and the calcium-channel blocker amlodipine were assigned as separate regimens, so this type 2 diabetes study did not test irbesartan's benefit with concurrent calcium-channel-blocker therapy. The captopril study in type 1 diabetes is covered by the sentence's other citations, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The level of proteinuria declined by 35 percent with losartan (P<0.001 for the comparison with placebo).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Losartan also reduced the risk of end-stage renal disease by 28 percent (P=0.002)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“according to the per-protocol analysis, among the patients who continued to receive their assigned study treatment, losartan conferred a 22 percent reduction in the risk of the primary composite end point (P=0.008).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did find a significant difference in favor of losartan with regard to the rate of a first hospitalization for heart failure, a component of this secondary composite end point.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk of the combined end point of end-stage renal disease or death was 20 percent lower in the losartan group than in the placebo group (P=0.01)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this population, losartan (plus conventional antihypertensive therapy) demonstrated excellent tolerability, similar to that of placebo (plus conventional antihypertensive therapy), as evidenced by the similar numbers of patients in the two groups in whom the study treatment was discontinued because of adverse events.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Treatment with losartan resulted in a 16 percent reduction in the risk of the primary composite end point (P= 0.02)”
plaindirectn = 327 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, simultaneous therapy with calcium-channel antagonists did not detract from the beneficial effects of losartan, despite the recent controversy regarding the role of calcium-channel antagonists in the protection of the kidneys and the heart. 25-27”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately one third of the patients had a fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular event (247 in the losartan group [32.9 percent] and 268 in the placebo group [35.2 percent]; risk reduction, 10 percent; P=0.26).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a difference between the number of myocardial infarctions in the losartan group (50 patients [6.7 percent]) and the number in the placebo group (68 patients [8.9 percent]; risk reduction, 28 percent), but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.08).”
plainn = 50- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a small, time-averaged difference in the trough blood pressure between the losartan group”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately 20 percent of the patients died, but there was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (P=0.88).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Losartan also led to an average reduction in the level of proteinuria (the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio) of 35 percent, whereas in the patients in the placebo group, the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio tended to increase (P<0.001 for the overall treatment effect) (Fig. 3).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“mean arterial pressure, 95.9 mm Hg and 96.8 mm Hg, respectively [P=0.59]; pulse pressure, 66.7 mm Hg and 67 .4 mm Hg, respectively [P= 0.77]”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“mean arterial pressure, 99.1 mm Hg and 99.7 mm Hg, respectively [P= 0.38]; pulse pressure, 66.2 mm Hg and 67 .1 mm Hg, respectively [P=0.37]”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“mean arterial pressure, 100.9 mm Hg and 103.1 mm Hg, respectively [P<0.001]; pulse pressure, 67 .8 mm Hg and 69.8 mm Hg, respectively [P=0.05]”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no significant differences in the rates of most of the cardiovascular end points; the exception was the first hospitalization with heart failure (89 patients in the losartan group [11.9 percent], as compared with 127 in the placebo group [16.7 percent]), for which the risk was reduced by 32 percent (P=0.005)”
- Also stated in: § A BSTRACT · p. 1 · plain
“although the rate of first hospitalization for heart failure was significantly lower with losartan (risk reduction, 32 percent; P=0.005)”
plaindirectn = 89 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § A BSTRACT · p. 1 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At base line, 93.5 percent of the patients (92.3 percent in the losartan group and 94.6 percent in the placebo group) were receiving antihypertensive therapy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The benefits of losartan were observed among our patients, many of whom were already receiving other therapies, such as aspirin, beta-blockers, and lipidlowering agents, as part of sound medical practice.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased serum concentrations of creatinine or potassium led to the discontinuation of the study medication in 1.5 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively, of the patients in the losartan group, as compared with 1.2 percent and 0.5 percent of the patients in the placebo group.”
plaindirectn = 1,513- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analyses of the primary and secondary end points were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle; we included data from all randomized patients (with the exception of three patients who were lost to follow-up), from the time of randomization through the date of study termination.”
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An independent end-points committee whose members were unaware of the patients' treatment assignments reviewed the data to determine which patients had reached the end points.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More patients discontinued the study treatment in the placebo group (53.5 percent) than in the losartan group (46.5 percent).”
plainn = 1,513- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan Study was an investigator-initiated, multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the renoprotective effects of losartan in 1513 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.”
plainn = 1,513- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Because one interim analysis used a stopping boundary that was based on an alpha spending function of the O'Brien-Fleming type, 10 a critical P value of 0.048 was required for the primary hypothesis.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a second, per-protocol analysis, we excluded patients who violated the criteria for inclusion and exclusion and censored patients' data 14 days after they permanently discontinued the study medication.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of each center, and all patients gave written informed consent.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the study was discontinued early (February 10, 2001) by a unanimous vote of the steering committee, whose members were unaware of the treatment assignments.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We cannot exclude the possibility that this small difference had a beneficial effect on the renal outcomes.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study 32 and its substudy of patients with diabetes, MICRO-HOPE, 20 showed benefits of angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibition in terms of the signs and symptoms of heart failure but failed to show significant differences in hospitalizations for heart failure.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previous studies involving angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitors have demonstrated beneficial effects on proteinuria but have not demonstrated the superiority of blockade of the renin-angiotensin system in slowing the progression to end-stage renal disease over nonblockade forms of therapy. 14-20”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] Walker WG, 1992, J Am Soc Nephrol
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Estacio RO, 2000, Diabetes Care
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, in the absence of a direct comparison between angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II antagonists, any extrapolation from the results obtained with different classes of drugs is speculative at best.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We were able to determine the status of all patients (except for three patients in the losartan group who could not be contacted) with respect to dialysis, transplantation, and death.”
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subsequent hospitalizations for heart failure were not assessed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the Cox model accounts for the base-line level of proteinuria (which was a stratification factor) and the geographic region, as prespecified in the data analysis plan.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The difference results in part from the fact that the Cox regression model accounts for the time at risk - i.e., the longer average follow-up in the losartan group than in the placebo group.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease.
“Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes.
“type 2, the most common form of diabetes”
The paper relies on this without support.
Similar data on interruption of the renin-angiotensin system are not available for patients with type 2 diabetes.
“similar data are not available for patients with type 2, the most common form of diabetes”
The paper relies on this without support.
Postponing end-stage renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes remains an elusive goal.
“postponing end-stage renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, the leading cause of chronic renal failure in many countries, remains an elusive goal”
The paper relies on this without support.
Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of chronic renal failure in many countries.
“type 2 diabetes, the leading cause of chronic renal failure in many countries”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“In the IDNT trial, treatment with irbesartan compared with placebo resulted in a 33% decrease in the risk of doubling of serum creatinine concentration and was associated with a nonsigni fi cant reduction in the incidence of kidney failure, which was independent of blood pressure.”
From KDIGO 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of albuminuria (67)(68)(69)(70), and among people with type 1 or 2 diabetes with established CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m 2 and UACR $300 mg/g creatinine), ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy reduces the risk of progression to ESKD (71)(72)(73)(74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79)(80).”
From 11. Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [71]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been shown to prevent major adverse kidney outcomes in people with diabetes, and these drugs are recommended by clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes who have, or are at high risk of, kidney disease.[4][5][6][7][8]”
From SGLT2 inhibitors for the prevention of kidney failure in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The only currently approved treatment for renoprotection in patients with type 2 diabetes is reninangiotensin system blockade, which was first shown to be effective 18 years ago.3,4”
From Canagliflozin and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy (2019) · cites this paper as [3]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, a sustained ≥57% decrease in eGFR (equivalent to doubling of serum creatinine) was selected in FIDELITY because it is a classic outcome in diabetic nephropathy studies2 , 12–14 and is a more robust kidney failure surrogate outcome than a ≥40% decrease in eGFR, particularly when initial changes in eGFR occur.14 , 15”
From Cardiovascular and kidney outcomes with finerenone in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: the FIDELITY pooled analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of albuminuria (68-71), and among people with type 1 or 2 diabetes with established CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m 2 and UACR ≥300 mg/g creatinine), ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy reduces the risk of progression to kidney failure (72)(73)(74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79)(80)(81).”
From 11. Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [72]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“ACE inhibitors or ARBs are the preferred first-line agents for blood pressure treatment among people with diabetes, hypertension, eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m 2 , and UACR ≥300 mg/g creatinine because of their proven benefits for prevention of CKD progression (72,73,75).”
From 11. Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [72]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This recommendation is based on RCTs where findings demonstrated decreased risk of CKD progression, for which patients with albuminuria are at elevated risk, with a maximally dosed RAS inhibitor compared with placebo or an active antihypertensive drug comparator (42–44).”
From Diabetes management in chronic kidney disease: a consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) (2022) · cites this paper as [42]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In patients with diabetic kidney disease with increased levels of albuminuria, large placebo-controlled trials have shown that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors,3–5 sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors,6,7 and the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone8,9 all reduced the risk of progression to kidney failure.”
From Empagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease (2023) · cites this paper as [3]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“In the IDNT trial, treatment with irbesartan compared with placebo resulted in a 33% decrease in the risk of doubling of serum creatinine concentration and was associated with a nonsigni fi cant reduction in the incidence of kidney failure, which was independent of blood pressure.”
From KDIGO 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“For many years, the only agents that had demonstrated benefit in slowing kidney disease progression were the renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockers of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) [11], [12], [13].”
From Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in diabetic kidney disease: a review of their kidney and heart protection (2023) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“ARBs (irbesartan/telmisartan) also slowed progression from microalbuminuria (albuminuria stage A2) to overt nephropathy.708,709”
From 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. (2023) · cites this paper as [708]
In the citing paper
“Antagonism of the RAAS with ACE inhibitors or AngII receptor blockers also attenuates, but may not completely halt, the progression of kidney injury in patients with obesity, hypertension and T2DM67,68.”
From Obesity, kidney dysfunction and hypertension: mechanistic links (2019) · cites this paper as [67]
In the citing paper
“Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB)s improve endothelium-dependent vasodilation and reduce morbidity and mortality in heart failure and nephropathy, including diabetic nephropathy.218-221”
From The Vasculature in Prediabetes (2018) · cites this paper as [219]
In the citing paper
“Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB)s improve endothelium-dependent vasodilation and reduce morbidity and mortality in heart failure and nephropathy, including diabetic nephropathy.218-221”
From The Vasculature in Prediabetes (2018) · cites this paper as [219]
In the citing paper
“ARBs have also been shown to reduce the rate of progression from micro- to macroalbuminuria as well as ESRD in patients with type 2 diabetes (234–236).”
From Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009 (2009) · cites this paper as [235]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“The mean follow-up time was 3.4 years (42 months).”
Reported 42 · recomputed 40.8
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Patients · p. 2
“who had any history of heart failure before enrollment.”
§ DISCUSSION · p. 6
“There were 88 patients (44 in each group) who had preexisting heart failure at the time of randomization.”
Citations
Cites
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1992) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_25 · Cited by 45,239
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x · Cited by 39,793
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · Cited by 39,158
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1992) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_37 · Cited by 26,297
Levey, A. S., Bosch, J. P., Lewis, J. B., Greene, T., Rogers, N., Roth, D., & for the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group* (1999) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00002 · Cited by 15,079
(2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200001203420301 · Cited by 8,663
The SOLVD Investigators* (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199108013250501 · Cited by 8,029
Lewis, E. J., Hunsicker, L. G., Clarke, W. R., Berl, T., Pohl, M. A., Lewis, J. B., Ritz, E., Atkins, R. C., Rohde, R., & Raz, I. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa011303 · Cited by 5,987
The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy
Lewis, E. J., Hunsicker, L. G., Bain, R. P., & Rohde, R. D. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199311113292004 · Cited by 5,394
(1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199209033271003 · Cited by 3,725
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Black HR, 1999, J Hypertens, 17, S3
- Levey AS, 2000, J Am Soc Nephrol, 11, 155A
- Walker WG, 1992, J Am Soc Nephrol, 3, 339
- Estacio RO, 2000, Diabetes Care, 23, B54
- Bauer JH, Reams GP. Antihypertensive drugs. In: Brenner BM, ed. The kidney. 6th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2000:2253-97.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 7,301–7,400 of 7,495
The Background History of Diabetic Nephropathy
Haggar, M., & Fonseca, V. A. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0793-9_1
Diabetic Renal and Related Heart Disease
Mogensen, C. E., & Andersen, N. H. (2006) · Humana Press eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-153-6_25
Renal ischemia/reperfusion injury in diabetes : experimental studies in the rat.
Melin, J. (2002) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
van Teeffelen, W. M. (2011) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-313-8543-0_19
Survival of patients with type 1 diabetes on renal replacement therapy
Helve, J. (2014) · Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja
Madhu, M. N. (2009) · Journal of Bioresource Management
Evaluación clínica de la nefroprotección de los bloqueadores
Uhlenhaut, M. B. (2009) · Acta Médica Costarricense · doi:10.51481/amc.v45i2.95
Epidemiology and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Diabetes
Frankel, D. S., & Meigs, J. B. (2008) · Humana Press eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-141-3_2
Weir, N. M. (2012) · CORE Scholar (Wright State University)
RISCHIO E PREVENZIONE DELLA NEFROPATIA DIABETICA
Ravera, M., Re, M., & Deferrari, G. (2007)
Borg, R., Kriegbaum, M., Grand, M. K., Lind, B., Andersen, C. L., & Persson, F. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.23557924
Nakagaito, M., Imamura, T., Joho, S., Ushijima, R., Nakamura, M., & Kinugawa, K. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.15033013
Liu, M., Di, Y. M., Zhang, A. L., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26666908
Gant, C. M., Oosterwijk, M. M., Binnenmars, S. H., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26610714
Mikhaljova, E. V., Golovatch, S. I., & Chang, H.-W. (2011) · INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.201052
Profile of Diabetic Nephropathy in Southern MoroccoPreprint
BENBRIA, S., BAHADI, A., ZORKANI, Y., et al. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-282189/v1
Jeong, S. J., Lee, S. E., Shin, D. H., Park, I. B., Lee, H. S., & Kim, K.-A. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14600443
Nichols, G. A., Déruaz‐Luyet, A., Brodovicz, K. G., Kimes, T. M., Rosales, A. G., & Hauske, S. J. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12270389
Mukai, J., Okamura, N., Saito, Y., & Kubota, R. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26617732
Liu, M., Di, Y. M., Zhang, A. L., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26666911
Hegazy, S. K., Amaar, W. A., & Hegab, W. S. M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26094291
Coscarón, M. D. C., & Melo, M. C. (2003) · INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.156882
Nichols, G. A., Déruaz‐Luyet, A., Brodovicz, K. G., Kimes, T. M., Rosales, A. G., & Hauske, S. J. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12386351
Jin, D., Huang, W.-J., Meng, X., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.11992446
Zhou, J., Wang, X., Tang, R., Kou, M., Ma, H., Li, X., Heianza, Y., Fonseca, V. A., & Qi, L. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25367287
Wanas, Y., Bashir, R., Islam, N., & Furuya‐Kanamori, L. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12171771
Zhai, Z., Yang, Y., Lin, G., Lin, W., Wu, J., Liu, X., Zhang, S., Zhou, Q., Liu, H., & Hao, G. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22621358
Schechter, M., Cohen, C. M., Rozenberg, A., Yanuv, I., Chodick, G., Karasik, A., Kosiborod, M., & Mosenzon, O. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.15253888
Alsalemi, N., Sadowski, C. A., Elftouh, N., Louis, M., Kilpatrick, K., Houle, S. K. D., & Lafrance, J. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19681822
Liu, M., Di, Y. M., Zhang, A. L., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24993708
Araújo-Silva, C. D. L., & Larsen, K. (2010) · INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.196900
Bramlage, P., Lanzinger, S., Mühldorfer, S., Milek, K., Gillessen, A., Veith, R., Ohde, T., Danne, T., Holl, R. W., & Seufert, J. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22790519
Nakagaito, M., Imamura, T., Joho, S., Ushijima, R., Nakamura, M., & Kinugawa, K. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.15033001
Alsalemi, N., Sadowski, C. A., Elftouh, N., Louis, M., Kilpatrick, K., Houle, S. K. D., & Lafrance, J. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19681828
Nakagaito, M., Imamura, T., Joho, S., Ushijima, R., Nakamura, M., & Kinugawa, K. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.15033007
Liu, M., Di, Y. M., Zhang, A. L., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24993800
Alsalemi, N., Sadowski, C. A., Elftouh, N., Louis, M., Kilpatrick, K., Houle, S. K. D., & Lafrance, J. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19681825
Machado‐Duque, M. E., Gaviria-Mendoza, A., Valladales‐Restrepo, L. F., Franco, J. S., de Rosario Forero, M., Vizcaya, D., & Machado-Alba, J. E. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.23625557
Chronic Kidney Disease: Definitions and General Approach
Ishaque, M. R., & Bailey, J. L. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4454-1_23
Reprint of: Chronic Kidney Disease in Diabetes: A Clinical Practice Guideline
Tobe, S. W., BAJAJ, H. S., Tangri, N., Jain, R., Pham, T., Beaudin, V., & McFarlane, P. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Diabetes · doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2025.12.004
Orozco‐Beltrán, D. (2025) · Diabetes práctica · doi:10.52102/diabet/manejo.erc.art4
Hanai, K., Yamashige, Y., Mori, T., et al. (2025) · Journal of Diabetes and its Complications · doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2025.109255
Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors and Cardiorenal Events in Nonalbuminuric Kidney Disease
Yen, F., Chong, K., Huang, C.-W., Wei, J. C., Liu, J., Yi-ling, W., Chen, C.-M., Hwu, C., & Hsu, C. (2025) · Kidney International Reports · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2025.103756
Hypertension in Diabetes: Numbers or Outcomes?
Koufakis, T., & Doumas, M. N. (2026) · American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs · doi:10.1007/s40256-025-00785-2
González-Rinnea, A., & Porrini, E. (2026) · The Nephron journals/Nephron journals · doi:10.1159/000549797
Sugawara, H., Yoshida, K., Saito, C., et al. (2026) · Hypertension Research · doi:10.1038/s41440-025-02536-x
Uemura, T., Tomita, K., Eriguchi, M., Torisu, K., Nishimoto, M., Uchida, Y., Giani, J. F., Bernstein, K. E., Tsuruya, K., & Nakano, T. (2026) · Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications · doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2026.153308
Dong, Y., Chang, C., Wu, L., & Toh, S. (2026) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.70323
Elavarasan, S., Soundararajan, D. K., Kovvuri, S. R., Venuturumilli, R., Anita, M., Naganathan, K., & Gopukumar, S. T. (2026) · KIDNEYS · doi:10.65327/kidneys.v15i1.602
Special Issue: “Molecular Mechanisms and Regulation in Chronic Kidney Diseases”
Delrue, C., Delanghe, J. R., & Speeckaert, M. M. (2026) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms27031500
Matsui, M., Kosugi, T., Kitamura, S., Nishimoto, M., Itano, A., Yamamoto, M., Yabuta, H., Oda, A., Kawakami, M., Tsushima, H., et al. (2026) · Renal Failure · doi:10.1080/0886022x.2026.2624169
The Physician Innovator – stepping off the well-worn road to find new solutions
Reiser, J., Wadhwani, S., & Altintas, M. M. (2026) · Seminars in Nephrology · doi:10.1016/j.semnephrol.2026.151683
Documento de posicionamiento de SEMERGEN sobre la enfermedad renal crónica
Pérez-León, N., García, J. P., Alonso-Álvarez, M. P., & Martínez-Berganza-Asensio, L. (2026) · Medicina de Familia SEMERGEN · doi:10.1016/j.semerg.2026.102690 · Cited by 1
Iwamoto, T., Hidaka, S., Iwamoto, M., & Shibata, H. (2026) · Journal of Diabetes and its Complications · doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2026.109308
Jasim, M. S., Sahib, B. O., & Ali, E. B. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Practice and Medical Research · doi:10.59324/jcpmr.2025.1(3).31
Beyond Single-Nephron Glomerular Filtration Rate: Barry Brenner, the Man I Knew
Abdi, R. (2026) · Seminars in Nephrology · doi:10.1016/j.semnephrol.2026.151680
Prevention of Heart Failure in People With Diabetes
Pandey, A., & Hernandez, A. F. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-87862-3.00015-x
Herrington, W. G., & Haynes, R. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-87862-3.00025-2
Kuwagata, S., Chin‒Kanasaki, M., Yamada, A., et al. (2026) · Journal of Diabetes Investigation · doi:10.1111/jdi.70277
Systematic Review of Trial Design and End Points in Lupus Nephritis
Giang, S., Dall’Era, M., Jones, R. B., Lightstone, L., Andersen, J., Martins, E., Terres, J. A. R., Turchetta, A., Pendergraft, W. F., & Malvar, A. (2026) · Kidney International Reports · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2026.106479
Ghimiray, P., Vijayakumar, P. R. A., Meghna, G. R., & Jamil, R. (2026) · Current Diabetes Reviews · doi:10.2174/0115733998402561251202101133
Cardio-renal-metabolic syndrome and its management in clinical practice
Šatný, M. (2025) · Vnitřní lékařství · doi:10.36290/vnl.2025.091
The deleterious effect of proteinuria in residual kidney function in hemodialysis patients
Álamo, B. S., Toral, I. M., Domínguez, M. E. D., Mendiola, N. R., & Lucas, M. F. (2026) · Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfag058
Long-term follow-up data of living kidney donors with pre-existing pre-diabetes
Jadaon, A. S., & Champawat, C. (2026) · World Advances in Renal Medicine · doi:10.25259/warm_30_2025
Renal failure isn't just a nephrologist problem
Cice, G. (2026) · European Heart Journal Supplements · doi:10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suag038
Bhuiya, N. M. M. A., Caballero, J., Young, H. N., & Zapata, L. V. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Hypertension · doi:10.1111/jch.70237
Oh, T. R., Park, J., Choi, H. S., Rhee, H., & Kang, G. (2026) · Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1111/cts.70533
Lin, X., Wang, Y., Jian, Z., et al. (2026) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/s12887-026-06795-6
Anupama, Y. J. (2026) · APIK Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.4103/ajim.ajim_3_26
de Pinho, N. A. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/f19e5556z67cbz4beazb36az4581696f0549
Protéinuries génétiques causées par déficit de réabsorption tubulaire proximale
Bedin, M. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/a3dc7a92z6158z43fez9b6bzb9ad00e7acbf
AbdelMagid, A. M., Kamel, A. M., & Farid, S. F. (2026) · Pharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · doi:10.1002/phar.70142
Tsai, S.-F., Liu, W.-J., Lin, Y.-J., & Lee, C.-L. (2026) · Nutrition & Metabolism · doi:10.1186/s12986-026-01118-z
Gembillo, G., Visconti, L., Tranchida, V., Nardi, C., Calimeri, S., Gambuzza, M. E., Princiotto, M., Chinigò, C., Soraci, L., & Santoro, D. (2026) · World Journal of Diabetes · doi:10.4239/wjd.v17.i4.115058
Prediction model for rapid estimated glomerular filtration rate decline in type 2 diabetes mellitus
Huang, P., Qin, X.-Q., Huang, Q., Wang, S.-D., Wu, Y., Huang, X.-R., & Lin, X. (2026) · World Journal of Diabetes · doi:10.4239/wjd.v17.i4.116772
Stage A Heart Failure: Identification and Management of Heart Failure Risk Factors
Elezaby, A., Nayor, M. G., & Alexander, K. M. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-15734-9.00096-0
RAAS blockade in the kidney life-cycle–treatment standard
Moriconi, D., García-Carro, C., Núñez, J. E., Correa‐Rotter, R., Tuttle, K., & Soler, M. J. (2026) · Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfag090 · Cited by 1
Chowdhury, D., Mishra, A., Kumari, N., Manna, R., Sahoo, A., Kumar, P., & Bodakhe, S. H. (2026) · Obesity Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.obmed.2026.100704
Living Kidney Donation and Hypertension
Garg, N., & Mandelbrot, D. A. (2026) · Transplantation · doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000005735
Colafella, K. M. M., Crowley, S. D., Le, T. H., Coffman, T. M., & Gurley, S. B. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-815389-5.00026-5
Finerenone and Empagliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes
Abdullah, M., Khalid, N., Frishman, W. H., & Aronow, W. S. (2026) · Cardiology in Review · doi:10.1097/crd.0000000000001308
Wang, L., Tang, Y., Dai, Q., et al. (2026) · Physiological Reports · doi:10.14814/phy2.70899
Hypertension as a Link Between Renal and Cardiac Dysfunction
Yağmur, F. H., & Kanbay, M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-25434-4_5
Chronic Kidney Disease in Cardiovascular Pathologies
Obrișcă, B., & Ismail, G. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-25434-4_4
Su, X.-E., Jing-Liu, Wu, S., Lin, C.-L., Wang, H.-G., Peng, C.-B., Xie, B., & He, H.-F. (2026) · BMC Medical Imaging · doi:10.1186/s12880-026-02422-z
Duan, Z.-Y., Gao, Y., Huang, M., Liang, Y., Hao, J., Wang, J., & Cai, G. (2026) · Life · doi:10.3390/life16060865
Almohammadi, A. A., Alharbi, R. O., & Alhubayshi, S. S. (2025) · Saudi Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.4103/sjim.sjim_33_25
Eurasian clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiorenal syndrome (2026)
Mitkovskaya, N. P., Chazova, I. E., Sudzhaeva, O. A., Grigorenko, E., Калачик, О. В., Геннадьевна, Ш. Л., Бранковская, Е. Ю., Смолякова, М. В., Trushina, O. I., Podzolkov, V. I., et al. (2026) · Eurasian heart journal · doi:10.38109/2225-1685-2026-2-6-41
Metadata
- Authors
- Brenner, B. M., Cooper, M. E., de Zeeuw, D., Keane, W. F., Mitch, W. E., Parving, H.-H., Remuzzi, G., Snapinn, S. M., Zhang, Z., & Shahinfar, S.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Hennepin County Medical Center (US)
- Emory University (US)
- Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research (IT)
- Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2001-09-20
- Volume
- 345
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 861-869
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2056976690
- Semantic Scholar
- 842bf4da2a50ee13464536c9dfa502f4eb80c5f1
- Cited by
- 7,493
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 180 · 2025: 233 · 2024: 211 · 2023: 248 · 2022: 235 · 2021: 240 · 2020: 263 · 2019: 204 · 2018: 212 · 2017: 233 · 2016: 243 · 2015: 249 · 2014: 289 · 2013: 288 · 2012: 341
- FWCI
- 280.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Renin-Angiotensin System Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Renal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
- Keywords
- losartan, type 2 diabetes, diabetic nephropathy, angiotensin receptor blockers, renin-angiotensin system blockade, end-stage renal disease, kidney disease progression, proteinuria, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, heart failure hospitalization, serum creatinine doubling, antihypertensive therapy
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Cardiovascular Diseases, Creatine, Creatinine, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Nephropathies, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Kidney Failure, Chronic, Male, Middle Aged, Proteinuria, Disease Progression, Losartan, Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-16, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-16 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
