ObjectiveCritically appraise prediction models for hospital-acquired acute kidney injury (HA-AKI) in general populations.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase and Web of Science until November 2016.EligibilityStudies describing development of a multivariable model for predicting HA-AKI in non-specialised adult hospital populations. Published guidance followed for data extraction reporting and appraisal.Results14 046 references were screened. Of 53 HA-AKI prediction models, 11 met inclusion criteria (general medicine and/or surgery populations, 474 478 patient episodes) and five externally validated. The most common predictors were age (n=9 models), diabetes (5), admission serum creatinine (SCr) (5), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (4), drugs (diuretics (4) and/or ACE inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (3)), bicarbonate and heart failure (4 models each). Heterogeneity was identified for outcome definition. Deficiencies in reporting included handling of predictors, missing data and sample size. Admission SCr was frequently taken to represent baseline renal function. Most models were considered at high risk of bias. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to predict HA-AKI ranged 0.71–0.80 in derivation (reported in 8/11 studies), 0.66–0.80 for internal validation studies (n=7) and 0.65–0.71 in five external validations. For calibration, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test or a calibration plot was provided in 4/11 derivations, 3/11 internal and 3/5 external validations. A minority of the models allow easy bedside calculation and potential electronic automation. No impact analysis studies were found.ConclusionsAKI prediction models may help address shortcomings in risk assessment; however, in general hospital populations, few have external validation. Similar predictors reflect an elderly demographic with chronic comorbidities. Reporting deficiencies mirrors prediction research more broadly, with handling of SCr (baseline function and use as a predictor) a concern. Future research should focus on validation, exploration of electronic linkage and impact analysis. The latter could combine a prediction model with AKI alerting to address prevention and early recognition of evolving AKI.

Several pathogenic processes have been implicated in the development of abdominal ascites. Portal hypertension, most usually in the context of liver cirrhosis, can explain about 75% of the cases, whereas infective, inflammatory and infiltrative aetiologies can account for the rest. In this article, we discuss the consensus best practice as published by three professional bodies for the management of ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). The aim of this study was to compare available clinical guidelines and identify areas of agreement and conflict. We carried out a review of the guidance documentation published by three expert bodies including the British Society of Gastroenterology, the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), as well as a wider literature search for ascites, SBP and HRS. Abdominal ultrasonography, diagnostic paracentesis and ascitic fluid cultures are recommended by all three guidelines, especially when there is strong clinical suspicion for infection. EASL and AASLD advocate the use of ascitic amylase and mycobacterial cultures/PCR when there is strong suspicion for tuberculosis and pancreatitis, respectively. Ascitic cytology can be useful when cancer is suspected and has a good diagnostic yield if performed correctly. EASL supports the use of urinary electrolytes for all patients; however, the British Society of Gastroenterology and AASLD only recommend their use for therapy monitoring. All three societies recommend cefotaxime as the antibiotic of choice for SBP and large-volume paracentesis for the management of ascites greater than 5 l in volume. For HRS, cautious diuresis, volume expansion with albumin and the use of vasoactive drugs are recommended. There appears to be good concordance between recommendations by the European, American and British guidelines for the management of ascites and the possible complications arising from it.