Most studies of acute kidney injury are flawed due to non-use of standard definitions

In an article published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases (AJKD), researchers found that among 176 studies on acute kidney injury, the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) definitions of kidney injury were inconsistently applied and 80% of studies did not define recovery of kidney function.

The KDIGO definition of AKI is used in both clinical practice and in research. This scoping review demonstrated that there is a wide variation of practice in how this definition is applied and also a lack of transparency about how researchers applied it. An international panel of experts in AKI was formed in an attempt to achieve consensus on how this definition should be applied. They participated in a Delphi process and while they were able to agree on some aspects of how the definition should be implemented, there were many areas in which no agreement could be reached. Dr Guthrie and his coauthors recommend that researchers clearly state how they applied the KDIGO definition for AKI when basing it absence or presence on healthcare data.

###

ARTICLE TITLE: Developing an AKI Consensus Definition for Database Research: Findings From a Scoping Review and Expert Opinion Using a Delphi Process

AUTHORS: Greg Guthrie, MB, ChB, Bruce Guthrie, PhD, Heather Walker, MB, ChB, Matthew T James, MD, PhD, Nicholas M Selby, MD, Marcello Tonelli, MD, SM, and Samira Bell, MD

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.05.019

---

---