Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) can affect hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with estimates ranging between 0.5% and 40%. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting incidence, mortality and risk factors for AKI in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods We systematically searched 11 electronic databases until 29 May 2020 for studies in English reporting original data on AKI and kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Incidences of AKI and KRT and risk ratios for mortality associated with AKI were pooled using generalized linear mixed and random-effects models. Potential risk factors for AKI were assessed using meta-regression. Incidences were stratified by geographic location and disease severity. Results A total of 3042 articles were identified, of which 142 studies were included, with 49 048 hospitalized COVID-19 patients including 5152 AKI events. The risk of bias of included studies was generally low. The pooled incidence of AKI was 28.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.8–39.5] among hospitalized COVID-19 patients from the USA and Europe (20 studies) and 5.5% (95% CI 4.1–7.4) among patients from China (62 studies), whereas the pooled incidence of KRT was 7.7% (95% CI 5.1–11.4; 18 studies) and 2.2% (95% CI 1.5–3.3; 52 studies), respectively. Among patients admitted to the intensive care unit, the incidence of KRT was 20.6% (95% CI 15.7–26.7; 38 studies). Meta-regression analyses showed that age, male sex, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and chronic kidney disease were associated with the occurrence of AKI; in itself, AKI was associated with an increased risk of mortality, with a pooled risk ratio of 4.6 (95% CI 3.3–6.5). Conclusions AKI and KRT are common events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with estimates varying across geographic locations. Additional studies are needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and optimal treatment of AKI in these patients.

Background The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is becoming increasingly important in healthcare. However, incorporation of PROMs into routine nephrological care is challenging. This study describes the first experience with PROMs in Dutch routine dialysis care. Methods A pilot study was conducted in dialysis patients in 16 centres. Patients were invited to complete PROMs at baseline and 3 and 6 months. PROMs consisted of the 12-item short-form and Dialysis Symptom Index to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden. Response rates, HRQoL and symptom burden scores were analysed. Qualitative research methods were used to gain insight into patients’ views on using PROMs in clinical practice. Results In total, 512 patients (36%) completed 908 PROMs (24%) across three time points. Response rates varied from 6 to 70% among centres. Mean scores for physical and mental HRQoL were 35.6 [standard deviation (SD) 10.2] and 47.7 (SD 10.6), respectively. Patients experienced on average 10.8 (SD 6.1) symptoms with a symptom burden score of 30.7 (SD 22.0). Only 1–3% of the variation in PROM scores can be explained by differences between centres. Patients perceived discussing their HRQoL and symptom scores as insightful and valuable. Individual feedback on results was considered crucial. Conclusions The first results show low average response rates with high variability among centres. Dialysis patients experienced a high symptom burden and poor HRQoL. Using PROMs at the individual patient level is suitable and may improve patient–professional communication and shared decision making. Further research is needed to investigate how the collection and the use of PROMs can be successfully integrated into routine care to improve healthcare quality and outcomes.

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming increasingly important in healthcare. In nephrology, there is no agreement on which chronic kidney disease (CKD) symptom questionnaire to use. Therefore, the aim of this study is to select a valid symptom questionnaire for routine assessment in patients with advanced CKD. Methods A four-phase mixed methods approach, using qualitative and quantitative research methods, was applied. First, a systematic literature search was conducted to retrieve existing symptom questionnaires. Second, a symptom list was created including all symptoms in existing questionnaires and symptoms mentioned in interviews with patients with CKD, from which symptom clusters were identified. Next, questionnaires were selected based on predefined criteria regarding content validity. Last, two online feedback panels of patients with CKD ( n = 151) and experts ( n = 6) reviewed the most promising questionnaires. Results The literature search identified 121 questionnaires, of which 28 were potentially suitable for symptom assessment in patients with advanced CKD. 101 unique symptoms and 10 symptom clusters were distinguished. Based on predefined criteria, the Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI) and Palliative Care Outcome Scale-Renal Version (IPOS-Renal) were selected and reviewed by feedback panels. Patients needed 5.4 and 7.5 min to complete the DSI and IPOS-Renal, respectively ( p < 0.001). Patients experienced the DSI as more specific, complete and straightforward compared to the IPOS-Renal. Conclusions The DSI was found to be valid and reliable, the most relevant, complete, and comprehensible symptom questionnaire available for routine assessment in patients with advanced CKD. Routine PROMs collection could be of great value to healthcare, both at individual patient and national level. Feedback on scores and involvement of healthcare providers may promote adaptation and implementation in healthcare. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1521-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used in nephrology care. However, in contrast to well‐known clinical measures such as blood pressure, health‐care professionals are less familiar with PROMs and the interpretation of PROM scores is therefore perceived as challenging. In this paper, we provide insight into the interpretation of PROM scores by introducing the different types and characteristics of PROMs, and the most relevant concepts for the interpretation of PROM scores. Concepts such as minimal detectable change, minimal important change and response shift are explained and illustrated with examples from nephrology care.