Skip to main content

Table 4 GRADE certainty of evidence assessment

From: Prognostic nutritional index as a predictive marker for acute kidney injury in adult critical illness population: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

Outcome

Number of studies (no. of patients)

Study design

Factors that may decrease certainty of evidence

Effect per 100 patients tested

Test accuracy CoE

Risk of bias

Indirectness

Inconsistency

Imprecision

Publication bias

Pre-test probability of 15%

Pre-test probability of 25%

Pre-test probability of 35%

True positives (patients with acute kidney injury)

16 studies

7160 patients

Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)

Seriousa

Not serious

Seriousb

Not serious

None

10 (9 to 11)

17 (14 to 19)

23 (20 to 26)

Low

False negatives (patients incorrectly classified as not having acute kidney injury)

5 (4 to 6)

8 (6 to 11)

12 (9 to 15)

True negatives (patients without acute kidney injury)

16 studies

14,079 patients

Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)

Seriousa

Not serious

Seriousb

Not serious

None

63 (57 to 68)

55 (50 to 60)

48 (44 to 52)

Low

False positives (patients incorrectly classified as having acute kidney injury)

22 (17 to 28)

20 (15 to 25)

17 (13 to 21)

  1. aMost of the enrolled studies did not use pre-specific cutoff value but depend on the Youden index
  2. bThe I2 values for sensitivity and specificity were notably high, at 95% and 98%, respectively. Among the five predefined subgroup analyses, only two—population and chronic kidney disease (CKD)—demonstrated potential differences in sensitivity. However, none of the five predefined subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in specificity