Controversy Over the Surrogacy of Proteinuria or Albuminuria for Cardiovascular Outcomes

医学 蛋白尿 蛋白尿 微量白蛋白尿 内科学 肾功能 糖尿病肾病 泌尿科 肾脏疾病 肌酐 血压 糖尿病
作者
Mohammad Hossein Panahi,Razieh Bidhendi Yarandi
出处
期刊:Canadian Journal of Cardiology [Elsevier BV]
卷期号:35 (9): 1256.e5-1256.e6 被引量:1
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.cjca.2019.04.024
摘要

We were pleased to read the excellent review by Harrison et al.,1Harrison T.G. Tam-Tham H. Hemmelgarn B.R. et al.Change in proteinuria or albuminuria as a surrogate for cardiovascular and other major clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Can J Cardiol. 2019; 35: 77-91Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar recently published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology, entitled “Change in Proteinuria or Albuminuria as a Surrogate for Cardiovascular and Other Major Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”. The authors declared that “There is ongoing controversy around the surrogacy of proteinuria or albuminuria, particularly for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes”; therefore, the aim of their review article was to assess the surrogacy of changing proteinuria or albuminuria for CV events, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and all-cause mortality. Results of the study showed inconsistent treatment effects for proteinuria and CV events (20 trials; TER 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.22]). Treatment effects on proteinuria or albuminuria were also inconsistent with the effects on all-cause mortality (21 trials; TER 1.17 [95% CI, 1.07-1.28]), and they concluded that “Change in proteinuria or albuminuria might be a suitable surrogate outcome for ESRD. However, overall treatment effects on these potential surrogates are inconsistent and overestimate the treatment effects on CV events and all-cause mortality.” Although the results were interesting, the obtained statistically significant level would be a matter of controversy. Borderline lower limits of 95% CIs made their significance level doubtable, whereas the 95% prediction interval (PI) suggested that the intervention effect could be null or even be in the opposite direction,2IntHout J. Ioannidis J.P.A. Rovers M.M. Goeman J.J. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis.BMJ Open. 2016; 6: e010247Crossref PubMed Scopus (591) Google Scholar as PI presents a wider range of interval than CI. Therefore, to evaluate clinical significance, PI was proposed in contrast to statistical significance. To explain further, CI quantifies the accuracy of the mean, whereas PI addresses the actual dispersion of effect sizes, and the 2 measures are not interchangeable. We suggest that the authors calculate the prediction interval for evaluating clinical significances to reach more reliable results.3Borenstein M. Hedges L.V. Higgins J.P. Rothstein H.R. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ2011Google Scholar We would like to mention another statistical issue as well. Meta-analysis uses normal distribution to estimate pooled CI (z-value), whereas relative risk (RR) follows a skewed distribution, which affects the results significantly. To tackle this issue, it would better to log-transform RR and pooled them and then inverse log by an exponential function and report RR instead of log-RR. The review authors did not mention, in the statistical part in the case, whether the process of analysis followed this point. We also assessed the methodological quality of this review using the 16-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 appraisal tool.4Shea B.J. Reeves B.C. Wells G. et al.AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.BMJ. 2017; 358: j4008Crossref PubMed Scopus (3100) Google Scholar According to AMSTAR 2, this study scored 16 items out of 16 (Table 1), so this systematic review provided an accurate and comprehensive summary of the results of the available studies that address the question of interest and is classified as high-quality, although the surrogacy of proteinuria or albuminuria for CV outcomes is still a matter of controversy.Table 1Methodological quality of the included meta-analyses and systematic reviews through AMSTAR 2ItemsN (%)1Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO (population, intervention, control group, and outcome)?Yes2Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to conduct of the review, and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?Yes3Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?Yes4Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?Yes5Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?Yes6Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?Yes7Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?Yes8Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?Yes9Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?Yes10Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?Yes11If meta-analysis was justified, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?Yes12If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?Yes13Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?Yes14Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for—and discussion of—any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?Yes15If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?Yes16Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?YesAMSTAR 2 ClassificationHighAMSTAR, A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. Open table in a new tab AMSTAR, A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Change in Proteinuria or Albuminuria as a Surrogate for Cardiovascular and Other Major Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisCanadian Journal of CardiologyVol. 35Issue 1PreviewThere is ongoing controversy around the surrogacy of proteinuria or albuminuria, particularly for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, which remain the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with chronic kidney disease. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to assess the surrogacy of changing proteinuria or albuminuria for CV events, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and all-cause mortality. Full-Text PDF
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
qwe1108完成签到 ,获得积分10
刚刚
1秒前
jane完成签到 ,获得积分10
4秒前
6秒前
瑾玉完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
8秒前
Akim应助duckspy采纳,获得10
8秒前
那种完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
liuyanq完成签到,获得积分20
8秒前
9秒前
普鲁卡因发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
加油杨完成签到 ,获得积分10
11秒前
liuyanq发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
随风完成签到,获得积分10
17秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
19秒前
米九完成签到,获得积分10
21秒前
zhao完成签到,获得积分10
24秒前
普鲁卡因发布了新的文献求助10
24秒前
zj完成签到,获得积分10
30秒前
蓝橙完成签到,获得积分10
31秒前
35秒前
GD88完成签到,获得积分10
36秒前
糟糕的梨愁完成签到,获得积分10
37秒前
莫西莫西完成签到 ,获得积分10
38秒前
小趴蔡完成签到 ,获得积分10
40秒前
唐唐发布了新的文献求助10
40秒前
飘逸剑身完成签到,获得积分10
43秒前
airtermis完成签到 ,获得积分10
43秒前
gfasdjsjdsjd完成签到,获得积分10
44秒前
44秒前
杨宁完成签到 ,获得积分10
44秒前
MchemG应助transition采纳,获得20
45秒前
科研通AI2S应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
46秒前
lxy发布了新的文献求助10
48秒前
gfasdjsjdsjd发布了新的文献求助10
49秒前
JCao727完成签到,获得积分10
49秒前
49秒前
50秒前
OAHCIL完成签到 ,获得积分10
51秒前
lixueao发布了新的文献求助10
52秒前
高分求助中
【提示信息,请勿应助】关于scihub 10000
Les Mantodea de Guyane: Insecta, Polyneoptera [The Mantids of French Guiana] 3000
徐淮辽南地区新元古代叠层石及生物地层 3000
The Mother of All Tableaux: Order, Equivalence, and Geometry in the Large-scale Structure of Optimality Theory 3000
Handbook of Industrial Diamonds.Vol2 1100
Global Eyelash Assessment scale (GEA) 1000
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 550
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 4038128
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3575831
关于积分的说明 11373827
捐赠科研通 3305610
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1819255
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 892655
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 815022