Back
For best output, select "Paper Size" as "A4" and "Margin" as "0" or "None".
To save or print to PDF, please select Print Destination > Save as PDF, enable Background Graphics under "More Settings", then click "Save".
During the congress, E-Posters will be accessible to all participants on the congress website 24/7, as well as in the E-poster stations in the congress center.
Preparing your E-Poster
Please review the E-Poster format requirements carefully when preparing your E-Poster. Should your E-Poster not meet the mentioned requirements, it may not be displayed as described above.
E-Poster Submission Deadline
Please prepare and upload your E-Poster no later than March 14, 2026 11.59PM CET. After this date, you will no longer be able to prepare and upload your E-poster and it will not be displayed and accessible on the congress website.
Please follow the instructions below to input your abstract title.
Abstract titles should be brief and reflect the content of the abstract.
Early identification of chronic kidney disease (CKD) plays a vital role in slowing disease progression and minimizing related health complications. The SCreening for Occult REnal Disease (SCORED) tool is a commonly used instrument for CKD risk assessment, yet its length and inclusion of less informative items may reduce its usability in certain clinical contexts. This study sought to evaluate the validity of a streamlined version, the modified SCORED (SCORED-M) tool, designed with fewer questions and enhanced predictive accuracy.
A cross-sectional pilot study was undertaken to assess the diagnostic validity of the modified screening tool (SCORED-M). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was applied to examine its discriminative ability, alongside calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV). Item inclusion or removal was guided by statistical significance, odds ratios, and clinical relevance to CKD risk. The most suitable cutoff score for CKD detection was established through comparative evaluation.
In this pilot study, 116 eligible participants were recruited. The streamlined SCORED-M, containing six items instead of the original nine, showed enhanced screening accuracy, yielding a greater area under the curve (0.89 vs. 0.79), higher sensitivity (0.97), and strong negative predictive value (0.97). These results highlight its improved capacity to detect CKD and exclude non-cases. The age-related scoring was adjusted from 2–4 points to a narrower 1–3 range, reducing the disproportionate impact of age as an isolated risk factor. Items with low predictive utility were eliminated. Highly relevant indicators were retained. A cutoff score of ≥4 emerged as the optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity, enabling efficient use of screening resources.
This pilot study offers initial evidence that the SCORED-M tool provides a simpler yet more precise method for CKD risk screening. Although the results are encouraging, further evaluation in larger and more heterogeneous cohorts is needed to verify its generalizability and enhance its suitability for widespread clinical use.
