somewordstoolate/Q2CRBench-3 huggingface dataset:
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic and prognostic benefit and safety of kidney biopsy among people with CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with suspected or diagnosed CKD
Intervention: Native kidney biopsy
Comparator: Clinical or standard diagnosis or prognosis for studies evaluating diagnostic or prognostic benefit; No comparator for studies evaluating safety
Outcome: Mortality
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Studies had moderate risk of bias due to concerns with potential confounding.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: There were 3 events.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Other Observational Study
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: Kidney biopsy: 3/11,180 (0.0%)
Effect: Pooled Rate (95% CI): 0% (0.00% to 0.00%)
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic and prognostic benefit and safety of kidney biopsy among people with CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with suspected or diagnosed CKD
Intervention: Native kidney biopsy
Comparator: Clinical or standard diagnosis or prognosis for studies evaluating diagnostic or prognostic benefit; No comparator for studies evaluating safety
Outcome: Perirenal hematoma
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Studies had moderate risk of bias due to concerns with potential confounding.
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: I2 >50%, suggesting some statistical heterogeneity.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Other Observational Study
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: Kidney biopsy: 647/2943 (22.0%)
Effect: Pooled Rate (95% CI): 16% (12% to 22%)
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C, creatinine, or their combination compared to mGFR among people with and without CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with or without CKD
Intervention: Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C (eGFRcys); creatinine (eGFRcr); cystatin C and creatinine (eGFRcr-cys)
Comparator: Measured GFR (mGFR; using urinary or plasma clearance of exogenous filtration marker)
Outcome: Measurement bias (eGFR - mGFR) for cystatin C-based equations
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Measurement bias is consistent across most studies with enough exceptions to cause some concern.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Wide range in confidence intervals (positive to negative) 
Other considerations: result: None
Study design: Other Observational Study
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: eGFR-estimating equation: 11602
Effect: Range of measurement bias: -12.9 to 5-
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C, creatinine, or their combination compared to mGFR among people with and without CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with or without CKD
Intervention: Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C (eGFRcys); creatinine (eGFRcr); cystatin C and creatinine (eGFRcr-cys)
Comparator: Measured GFR (mGFR; using urinary or plasma clearance of exogenous filtration marker)
Outcome: Measurement bias (eGFR - mGFR) for creatinine + cystatin-based equations
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Measurement bias is inconsistent enough across all studies to cause serious concerns.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Wide range in confidence intervals (positive to negative) 
Other considerations: result: None
Study design: Other Observational Study
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: eGFR-estimating equation: 13296
Effect: Range of measurement bias: -9.7 to 4.1-
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C, creatinine, or their combination compared to mGFR among people with and without CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with or without CKD
Intervention: Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C (eGFRcys); creatinine (eGFRcr); cystatin C and creatinine (eGFRcr-cys)
Comparator: Measured GFR (mGFR; using urinary or plasma clearance of exogenous filtration marker)
Outcome: Measurement bias (eGFR - mGFR) for creatinine-based equations
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Measurement bias is inconsistent enough across all studies to cause serious concerns.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Very wide range of confidence intervals (positive to negative) spanning 20+ points.
Other considerations: result: None
Study design: Other Observational Study
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: eGFR-estimating equation: 12491
Effect: Range of measurement bias: -8.8 to 11.3-
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C, creatinine, or their combination compared to mGFR among people with and without CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with or without CKD
Intervention: Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C (eGFRcys); creatinine (eGFRcr); cystatin C and creatinine (eGFRcr-cys)
Comparator: Measured GFR (mGFR; using urinary or plasma clearance of exogenous filtration marker)
Outcome: P30 for cystatin C-based equations
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Wide range of P30 values.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Very wide range of confidence intervals.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Other Observational Study
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: eGFR-estimating equation: 11462
Effect: Range of P30 Certainty: -59.9 to 97.8
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C, creatinine, or their combination compared to mGFR among people with and without CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with or without CKD
Intervention: Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C (eGFRcys); creatinine (eGFRcr); cystatin C and creatinine (eGFRcr-cys)
Comparator: Measured GFR (mGFR; using urinary or plasma clearance of exogenous filtration marker)
Outcome: P30 for creatinine + cystatin C-based equations
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Wide range of P30 values.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Wide range of confidence intervals.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Other Observational Study
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: eGFR-estimating equation: 12499
Effect: Range of P30 Certainty: 77 to 97.6-
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C, creatinine, or their combination compared to mGFR among people with and without CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with or without CKD
Intervention: Estimated GFR (eGFR) based on measurements of cystatin C (eGFRcys); creatinine (eGFRcr); cystatin C and creatinine (eGFRcr-cys)
Comparator: Measured GFR (mGFR; using urinary or plasma clearance of exogenous filtration marker)
Outcome: P30 for creatinine-based equations
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Wide range of P30 values.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Very wide range of confidence intervals.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Other Observational Study
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: eGFR-estimating equation: 12125
Effect: Range of P30 Certainty: -55.5 to 96
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of uric acid–lowering therapy compared with placebo, usual care, or an active comparator among people with CKD and hyperuricemia in terms of mortality, progression of CKD, complications of CKD, and adverse events?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and asymptomatic hyperuricemia
Intervention: Uric acid-lowering therapy (ULT; allopurinol, benzbromarone, febuxostat, oxipurinol, pegloticase, probenecid, topiroxostat, rasburicase, sulfinpyrazone, lesinurad)
Comparator: Active comparator (e.g., another uric acid–lowering therapy), placebo, or usual care
Outcome: Progression of CKD to kidney failure* (follow-up: range 3 months to 12 months)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: One of the included trials had a high risk of bias.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There was a total of 15 events among the 285 participants enrolled in the two trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: ULT: 5/215 (2.3%)
Placebo or usual care: 10/70 (14.3%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.23 (0.06 to 0.88)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 110 fewer per 1,000 (from 134 fewer to 17 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of uric acid–lowering therapy compared with placebo, usual care, or an active comparator among people with CKD and hyperuricemia in terms of mortality, progression of CKD, complications of CKD, and adverse events?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and asymptomatic hyperuricemia
Intervention: Uric acid-lowering therapy (ULT; allopurinol, benzbromarone, febuxostat, oxipurinol, pegloticase, probenecid, topiroxostat, rasburicase, sulfinpyrazone, lesinurad)
Comparator: Active comparator (e.g., another uric acid–lowering therapy), placebo, or usual care
Outcome: Cutaneous reactions and hypersensitivity (follow-up: mean 3 months)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: I-squared was greater than 50%.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: There was a total of 2 events among the 234 participants enrolled in the two trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: ULT: 1/176 (0.6%)
Placebo or usual care: 1/58 (1.7%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.46 (0.02 to 12.16)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 9 fewer per 1,000 (from 17 fewer to 192 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of uric acid–lowering therapy compared with placebo, usual care, or an active comparator among people with CKD and hyperuricemia in terms of mortality, progression of CKD, complications of CKD, and adverse events?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and asymptomatic hyperuricemia
Intervention: Uric acid-lowering therapy (ULT; allopurinol, benzbromarone, febuxostat, oxipurinol, pegloticase, probenecid, topiroxostat, rasburicase, sulfinpyrazone, lesinurad)
Comparator: Active comparator (e.g., another uric acid–lowering therapy), placebo, or usual care
Outcome: Hepatotoxicity (follow-up: range 3 months to 12 months)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: One of the included trials had a high risk of bias and another had some concerns with risk of bias.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: There was a total of 2 events among the 201 participants enrolled in the three trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: ULT: 2/128 (1.6%)
Placebo or usual care: 0/73 (0.0%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 1.55 (0.16 to 14.51)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 0 fewer per 1,000 (from 0 fewer to 0 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of uric acid–lowering therapy compared with placebo, usual care, or an active comparator among people with CKD and hyperuricemia in terms of mortality, progression of CKD, complications of CKD, and adverse events?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and hyperuricemia with subgroups for symptomatic and asymptomatic hyperuricemia
Intervention: Uric acid-lowering therapy (ULT; allopurinol, benzbromarone, febuxostat, oxipurinol, pegloticase, probenecid, opiroxostat, rasburicase, sulfinpyrazone, lesinurad)
Comparator: Active comparator (e.g., another uric acid–lowering therapy), placebo, or usual care
Outcome: Progression of CKD to kidney failure* (follow-up: range 12 months to 84 months)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There was a total of 71 events among the 1198 participants enrolled in the six trials. The number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: MODERATE
No of participants: ULT: 41/612 (6.7%)
lacebo or usual care: 30/586 (5.1%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 1.38 (0.88 to 2.16)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 19 more per 1,000 (from 6 fewer to 59 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of uric acid–lowering therapy compared with placebo, usual care, or an active comparator among people with CKD and hyperuricemia in terms of mortality, progression of CKD, complications of CKD, and adverse events?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and hyperuricemia with subgroups for symptomatic and asymptomatic hyperuricemia
Intervention: Uric acid-lowering therapy (ULT; allopurinol, benzbromarone, febuxostat, oxipurinol, pegloticase, probenecid, opiroxostat, rasburicase, sulfinpyrazone, lesinurad)
Comparator: Active comparator (e.g., another uric acid–lowering therapy), placebo, or usual care
Outcome: Cutaneous reactions and hypersensitivity (follow - up: range 3 months to 41 months)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There was a total of 58 events among the 1610 participants enrolled in the seven trials. The number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: MODERATE
No of participants: ULT: 30/803 (3.7%)
lacebo or usual care: 28/807 (3.5%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 1.07 (0.64 to 1.77)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 2 more per 1,000 (from 12 fewer to 27 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of uric acid–lowering therapy compared with placebo, usual care, or an active comparator among people with CKD and hyperuricemia in terms of mortality, progression of CKD, complications of CKD, and adverse events?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and hyperuricemia with subgroups for symptomatic and asymptomatic hyperuricemia
Intervention: Uric acid-lowering therapy (ULT; allopurinol, benzbromarone, febuxostat, oxipurinol, pegloticase, probenecid, opiroxostat, rasburicase, sulfinpyrazone, lesinurad)
Comparator: Active comparator (e.g., another uric acid–lowering therapy), placebo, or usual care
Outcome: Hepatotoxicity (follow-up: range 3 months to 25 months)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: There was a total of 21 events among the 731 participants enrolled in the five trials. The number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: ULT: 7/363 (1.9%)
lacebo or usual care: 14/368 (3.8%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.56 (0.23 to 1.34)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 17 fewer per 1,000 (from 29 fewer to 13 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of aspirin compared with placebo in terms of the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and safety among people with CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD at risk for CVD (i.e., people must not have established CVD)
Intervention: Aspirin
Comparator: Placebo
Outcome: Cardiovascular mortality (follow-up: range 3.8 years to 5.4 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were some concerns with the risk of bias of the 2 largest trials (Wolfe 2021 and Jardine 2010) because they were both post hoc subgroup analyses. 
There were some concerns with risk of bias because one study (Goicoechea 2018) did not blind patients nor carers.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were only 185 events among the 7952 participants enrolled in the 3 trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: Aspirin: 56/3956 (1.4%)
Placebo: 78/3996 (2.0%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.73 (0.52 to 1.03)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 5 fewer per 1,000 (from 9 fewer to 1 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of aspirin compared with placebo in terms of the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and safety among people with CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD at risk for CVD (i.e., people must not have established CVD)
Intervention: Aspirin
Comparator: Placebo
Outcome: Composite cardiovascular events (follow-up: range 3.8 years to 5.4 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were some concerns with 2 trials (Goicoechea 2018 and Saito 2011) because they did not blind patients nor carers.
There were some concerns with the risk of bias because 4 of the 5 trials were post hoc subgroup analyses.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: MODERATE
No of participants: Aspirin: 242/4800 (5.0%)
Placebo: 305/4767 (6.4%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.79 (0.62 to 1.00)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 13 fewer per 1,000 (from 24 fewer to 0 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of aspirin compared with placebo in terms of the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and safety among people with CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD at risk for CVD (i.e., people must not have established CVD)
Intervention: Aspirin
Comparator: Placebo
Outcome: Myocardial infarction (follow-up: range 3.8 years to 5.4 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were some concerns with the risk of bias of the 2 largest trials (Wolfe 2021 and Jardine 2010) because they were both post hoc subgroup analyses. 
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: I2 from meta-analysis was greater than 50%, suggesting some heterogeneity in results. There was a wide range of effect estimates.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were only 205 events among the 7952 participants enrolled in the 3 trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: Aspirin: 88/3956 (2.2%)
Placebo: 117/3996 (2.9%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.73 (0.43 to 1.22)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 8 fewer per 1,000 (from 17 fewer to 6 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of aspirin compared with placebo in terms of the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and safety among people with CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD at risk for CVD (i.e., people must not have established CVD)
Intervention: Aspirin
Comparator: Placebo
Outcome: Stroke (follow-up: range 3.8 years to 5.4 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were some concerns with the risk of bias of the 2 largest trials (Wolfe 2021 and Jardine 2010) because they were both post hoc subgroup analyses. 
There were some concerns with risk of bias because one study (Goicoechea 2018) did not blind patients nor carers.
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: I2 from meta-analysis was greater than 50%, suggesting some heterogeneity in results. There was a wide range of effect estimates.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were only 198 events among the 7952 participants enrolled in the 3 trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: Aspirin: 86/3956 (2.2%)
Placebo: 112/3996 (2.8%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.86 (0.51 to 1.44)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 4 fewer per 1,000 (from 14 fewer to 12 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of aspirin compared with placebo in terms of the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and safety among people with CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD at risk for CVD (i.e., people must not have established CVD)
Intervention: Aspirin
Comparator: Placebo
Outcome: Major bleeding (follow-up: range 3.8 years to 5.4 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were some concerns with 2 trials (Goicoechea 2018 and Saito 2011) because they did not blind patients nor carers.
There were some concerns with the risk of bias because 4 of the 5 trials were post hoc subgroup analyses.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Not enough information is reported to assess precision.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: Aspirin: -/4800
Placebo: -/4767
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 1.31 (1.01 to 1.70)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): -- per 1,000 (from -- to --)()