Key result
Population-based screening for CKD has uncertain benefits and substantial opportunity costs, whereas case finding in high-risk individuals is a more appealing strategy across all income settings.
Why the study?
Although early CKD detection generates enthusiasm, population-based screening has uncertain benefits and potential harms, necessitating a comparison of screening versus targeted case finding across different economic settings.
What are the benefits, harms, and opportunity costs of population-based screening versus case finding for early detection of CKD across different income settings?
What are the benefits, harms, and opportunity costs of population-based screening versus case finding for early detection of CKD across different income settings?
Case finding for CKD in high-risk individuals is preferred over population-based screening due to better resource utilization and fewer potential harms, regardless of a country's income level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uncertainty around population CKD screening warrants implementation caution; leaves open rigorous trials of case-finding strategies across settings.
Tonelli et al. (2020) conducted a review in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Population-based screening vs case finding was evaluated. Population-based screening for CKD has uncertain benefits and substantial opportunity costs, whereas case finding in high-risk individuals is a more appealing strategy across all income settings.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: