Renal complications in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Emerging data suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has extrapulmonary manifestations but its renal manifestations are not clearly defined. We aimed to evaluate renal complications of COVID-19 and their incidence using a systematic meta-analysis. DESIGN: Observational studies reporting renal complications in COVID-19 patients were sought from MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 2019 to June 2020. The nine-star Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate methodological quality. Incidence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. RESULTS: We included 22 observational cohort studies comprising of 17,391 COVID-19 patients. Quality scores of studies ranged from 4 to 6. The pooled prevalence of pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease was 5.2% (2.8-8.1) and 2.3% (1.8-2.8), respectively. The pooled incidence over follow-up of 2-28 days was 12.5% (10.1-15.0) for electrolyte disturbance (e.g. hyperkalaemia), 11.0% (7.4-15.1) for acute kidney injury (AKI) and 6.8% (1.0-17.0) for renal replacement therapy (RRT). In subgroup analyses, there was a higher incidence of AKI in US populations and groups with higher prevalence of pre-existing CKD. CONCLUSIONS: PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020186873 KEY MESSAGES COVID-19 affects multiple organs apart from the respiratory system; however, its renal manifestations are not clearly defined. In this systematic meta-analysis of 22 observational cohort studies, the prevalence of pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD) in COVID-19 patients was 5.2%. The most frequent renal complication was electrolyte disturbance (particularly hyperkalaemia) with an incidence of 12.5% followed by acute kidney injury (AKI) with an incidence of 11.0%; US populations and groups with higher prevalence of CKD had higher incidence of AKI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".