Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice

Clicks: 421
ID: 10605
2019
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #2 of 43 articles by views in international journal of nephrology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background. The clinical utility of early detection and treatment of allograft rejection is well-established. Despite frequent testing called for by standard of care protocols, the five-year kidney allograft survival rate is estimated to be as low as 71%. Herein, we report on posttransplant care provided to kidney allograft recipients by board-certified nephrologists in the United States. Methods. We measured clinical practice in a representative sample of 175 practicing nephrologists. All providers cared for simulated patients’ status after renal transplant ranging from 30-75 years in age and 3-24 months after transplant. Our sample of nephrologists cared for a total of 525 allograft cases. Provider responses to the cases were reviewed by trained clinicians, and care was compared to evidence-based care standards and accepted standard of care protocols. Results. Among nephrologists, practicing in settings ranging from transplant centers to community practice, we found that the clinical workup of kidney injury in posttransplant patients is highly variable and frequently deviates from evidence-based care. In cases with pathologic evidence of rejection, only 29.1% (102/350) received an appropriate, evidence-based biopsy, whereas, in cases with no pathological evidence of rejection, 41.3% (45/109) received low-value, unnecessary biopsies. Conclusion. Clinical care in the posttransplant setting is highly variable. Biopsies are often ordered in cases where their results do not alter treatment. Additionally, we found that misdiagnosis was common as were opportunities for earlier biopsy and detection of rejection. This evidence suggests that better diagnostic tools may be helpful to determine which transplant patients should be biopsied and which should not. This study suggests that nephrologists and transplant patients need better tests than creatinine and proteinuria and less invasive approaches than routine biopsies to determine when transplant patients should be investigated for rejection and additional treatment.
Reference Key
john2019variationinternational Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Peabody, John;Billings, Paul;Valdenor, Czarlota;Demko, Zach;Moshkevich, Solomon;Paculdo, David;Tran, Mary;Peabody, John;Billings, Paul;Valdenor, Czarlota;Demko, Zach;Moshkevich, Solomon;Paculdo, David;Tran, Mary;
Journal international journal of nephrology
Year 2019
DOI
10.1155/2019/5303284
URL
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijn/2019/5303284/abs/
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.