Pub Date : 2026-07-02Epub Date: 2026-05-13DOI: 10.1111/joim.70113
Enrico Vidal, Daniele Trevisanuto
<p>Dear Editor,</p><p>We read with great interest the recent perspective by Yi et al. on chronic kidney disease (CKD) as a “silent pandemic”, and we fully agree on the urgent need to improve early detection strategies at the global level [<span>1</span>]. The authors appropriately emphasize that CKD is often asymptomatic in its early stages and that simple, low-cost tools such as urine dipstick testing may facilitate earlier diagnosis.</p><p>However, we believe that the implications of this approach in pediatric populations warrant a more cautious and nuanced interpretation. In children, the role of routine screening urinalysis has long been debated. Although inexpensive and easy to perform, dipstick screening has limited diagnostic yield in asymptomatic individuals; may generate false-positive results; and can lead to unnecessary investigations, increased healthcare costs, and potential parental anxiety. Reflecting these concerns, the American Academy of Pediatrics removed routine screening urinalysis from its health supervision guidelines in 2007 [<span>2</span>]. Importantly, subsequent real-world data suggest that this recommendation had only a modest impact on clinical practice, with screening still performed in a substantial proportion of pediatric visits [<span>3</span>].</p><p>In addition, cost-effectiveness analyses have questioned the value of universal urine screening in children, particularly in low-risk populations [<span>4</span>]. These considerations highlight the risk of overdiagnosis and unnecessary medicalization when screening strategies are applied indiscriminately.</p><p>From a pediatric nephrology perspective, a more rational approach may be to prioritize risk-based and context-specific screening strategies. Increasing evidence supports the identification of well-defined high-risk groups—such as children born preterm or with low birth weight—who may benefit from structured longitudinal kidney surveillance [<span>5</span>]. In these populations, targeted monitoring—including assessment of proteinuria and kidney function—is biologically plausible and clinically justified, given their reduced nephron endowment and increased lifetime risk of CKD.</p><p>Beyond risk stratification, opportunistic screening embedded within existing healthcare pathways may represent a pragmatic alternative to population-wide programs. For example, mandatory pre-participation evaluations for sports activities—implemented in several countries—already include urine testing in some settings, although evidence suggests a low diagnostic yield and a high rate of transient or false-positive findings [<span>6</span>]. This highlights both the limitation of indiscriminate screening and the potential of these structured encounters as platforms for more selective, risk-based testing.</p><p>In conclusion, while we strongly support the call to recognize CKD as a global public health priority, screening strategies in children should be carefully tailored. A shift
{"title":"Regarding: Global kidney health: Are we failing the silent pandemic?","authors":"Enrico Vidal, Daniele Trevisanuto","doi":"10.1111/joim.70113","DOIUrl":"10.1111/joim.70113","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Dear Editor,</p><p>We read with great interest the recent perspective by Yi et al. on chronic kidney disease (CKD) as a “silent pandemic”, and we fully agree on the urgent need to improve early detection strategies at the global level [<span>1</span>]. The authors appropriately emphasize that CKD is often asymptomatic in its early stages and that simple, low-cost tools such as urine dipstick testing may facilitate earlier diagnosis.</p><p>However, we believe that the implications of this approach in pediatric populations warrant a more cautious and nuanced interpretation. In children, the role of routine screening urinalysis has long been debated. Although inexpensive and easy to perform, dipstick screening has limited diagnostic yield in asymptomatic individuals; may generate false-positive results; and can lead to unnecessary investigations, increased healthcare costs, and potential parental anxiety. Reflecting these concerns, the American Academy of Pediatrics removed routine screening urinalysis from its health supervision guidelines in 2007 [<span>2</span>]. Importantly, subsequent real-world data suggest that this recommendation had only a modest impact on clinical practice, with screening still performed in a substantial proportion of pediatric visits [<span>3</span>].</p><p>In addition, cost-effectiveness analyses have questioned the value of universal urine screening in children, particularly in low-risk populations [<span>4</span>]. These considerations highlight the risk of overdiagnosis and unnecessary medicalization when screening strategies are applied indiscriminately.</p><p>From a pediatric nephrology perspective, a more rational approach may be to prioritize risk-based and context-specific screening strategies. Increasing evidence supports the identification of well-defined high-risk groups—such as children born preterm or with low birth weight—who may benefit from structured longitudinal kidney surveillance [<span>5</span>]. In these populations, targeted monitoring—including assessment of proteinuria and kidney function—is biologically plausible and clinically justified, given their reduced nephron endowment and increased lifetime risk of CKD.</p><p>Beyond risk stratification, opportunistic screening embedded within existing healthcare pathways may represent a pragmatic alternative to population-wide programs. For example, mandatory pre-participation evaluations for sports activities—implemented in several countries—already include urine testing in some settings, although evidence suggests a low diagnostic yield and a high rate of transient or false-positive findings [<span>6</span>]. This highlights both the limitation of indiscriminate screening and the potential of these structured encounters as platforms for more selective, risk-based testing.</p><p>In conclusion, while we strongly support the call to recognize CKD as a global public health priority, screening strategies in children should be carefully tailored. A shift ","PeriodicalId":196,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":"300 2","pages":"213-214"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2026-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joim.70113","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147925144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-07-02Epub Date: 2026-05-26DOI: 10.1111/joim.70116
Søren Lund Kristensen, Sam Aiyad Ali, Mads Ersbøll, Jawad Haider Butt, Rasmus Rørth, Lucas Malta Westergaard, Lauge Østergaard, Finn Gustafsson, Oren Caspi, Emil Fosbøl, Lars Køber, Christian Selmer