Humanistic and Economic Burden of IgA Nephropathy: Systematic Literature Reviews and Narrative Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) is a progressive inflammatory kidney disease requiring long-term treatment to reduce the risk of progression to kidney failure. Here, we present two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to identify and summarize literature reporting the humanistic and economic burden of IgAN. METHODS: Electronic literature databases (Ovid Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane) were searched for relevant literature on 29 November 2021, supplemented with gray literature searches. Studies reporting any health-related quality of life (HRQoL) or health state utility outcomes in IgAN patients were included in the humanistic impact SLR, and studies reporting the costs and healthcare resource utilization associated with or economic models of IgAN disease management were included in the economic burden SLR. Narrative synthesis was used to discuss the heterogeneous studies included in the SLRs. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines were followed, and all included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Center for Evidence-Based Management tool for Critical Appraisal of a Survey or the Drummond Checklist. RESULTS: A total of 876 and 1122 references were identified from electronic and gray literature searches for humanistic and economic burden, respectively. Three studies reporting humanistic impact and five studies reporting economic burden met criteria for inclusion in these SLRs. The included humanistic studies reported patient preferences in the USA and China, HRQoL for patients with IgAN in Poland, and impact of exercise on HRQoL for patients with IgAN in China. The five economic studies reported costs of IgAN treatment in Canada, Italy, and China, along with two economic models from Japan. DISCUSSION: Current literature suggests IgAN is associated with substantial humanistic and economic burdens. However, these SLRs demonstrate the paucity of research conducted to specifically describe the humanistic or economic burden of IgAN and highlight the need for further research.
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 | 0.088 | 0.289 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".