Empagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease
New England Journal of Medicine, 2023 · paper · Clinical trials
Reports the EMPA-KIDNEY study of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. The text provided contains only author and affiliation listings, so it does not show the study's design or findings.
Checked: PDF from europepmc.org, fetched 4 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
6 findings
Substance Table S6 percentages do not match the printed counts: "45 / 561 (0.1%)", "47 / 536 (0.1%)", "51 / 1779 (<0.1%)", "61 / 1790 (<0.1%)", "6 / 1218 (<0.1%)", "14 / 1254 (<0.1%)".
- p. 53 Table S6
45 / 561
- p. 53 Table S6, All participants row
51 / 1779
- p. 53 Table S6
45 / 561 (0.1%)
- p. 53 Table S6, All participants
51 / 1779 (<0.1%)
Judge's note: p53 image checked. The footnote says 'Figures are number of participants (%)'. Every n/N gives a percentage 5 to 90 times larger than the one printed, and no other denominator, including the arm N, reproduces the printed values.
Second check: another model agreed, code check
Report a problem with this finding
Substance In Table S9a, the HbA1c absolute difference for prior diabetes is "-0.86 (-1.63, 0.09)". The interval is not symmetric about the estimate (0.77 below, 0.95 above), while the other rows from the same MMRM model are symmetric. The upper bound may be missing a minus sign (-0.09).
- p. 56 Table S9a, HbA1c, Prior diabetes
-0.86 (-1.63, 0.09)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: p56 image checked: '0.09' is printed without a minus. The arm SEs of 0.28 give an SE for the difference of about 0.40, so ±1.96 SE is about ±0.78 around -0.86, giving roughly (-1.64, -0.08). The other HbA1c rows are symmetric: -0.03 (-0.22, 0.17) and -0.39 (-0.77, -0.01). The sign decides whether the interval crosses zero, so the authors should confirm the bound.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Kidney disease progression HR 0.71 (0.62 to 0.81) and CV death HR 0.84 (0.60 to 1.19) are cited "respectively (Fig. S3)", but these are shown in Figs. S2a and S2b; Fig. S3 is 'Death by Cause'.
- p. 7 Results, Primary and Secondary Outcomes
0.81) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.19), respectively (Fig. S3)
- p. 37 Figure S2a
Hazard ratio (95% CI): 0.71 (0.62-0.81)
- p. 7 Primary and Secondary Outcomes, last paragraph
respectively (Fig. S3)
Judge's note: Supplement TOC and pages 37–39: Fig S2a is Kidney Disease Progression (HR 0.71, 0.62-0.81), Fig S2b is CV death, and Fig S3 is Death by Cause. Fig S3 has the CV subtotal 0.84 but no kidney progression result. The pointer should be Fig. S2.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Death from any cause (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.08) is cited "(Table 2 and Fig. S2)", but Fig. S2 shows kidney disease progression and CV death; the all-cause total (0.87, 0.70–1.08) appears in Fig. S3.
- p. 7 Results, Primary and Secondary Outcomes
95% CI 0.70 to 1.08; P=0.21) (Table 2 and Fig. S2)
- p. 37 Figure S2a title
Figure S2a. Kidney Disease Progression
- p. 7 Primary and Secondary Outcomes
(Table 2 and Fig. S2)
Judge's note: Page 7 text compared with supplement pp37–39. Fig S2a/b do not show HF hospitalization/CV death or all-cause death. Fig S3 'Total: Any cause 0.87 (0.70–1.08)'. The S2 and S3 pointers on p7 appear swapped.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Figure 2 (subgroup forest plot) carries a word-for-word copy of the Figure 1 legend ("The primary outcome ... occurred in 432 participants (13.1%) ... 42 fewer primary outcomes per 1000 patients treated for 2 years.") instead of a description of the forest plot.
- p. 13 Figure 2 caption
The primary outcome of kidney disease progression or death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 432 participants (13.1%)
Judge's note: The p13 image shows a forest plot of HRs by diabetes, eGFR and ACR subgroups. Its legend is identical to the p12 Figure 1 legend. The forest-plot description appears instead under Figure 3 on p14, so the legends appear to have shifted.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Figure 3, titled "Effect of allocation to empagliflozin on estimated glomerular filtration rate", shows eGFR over time with total and chronic slopes, but its legend says "Shown are forest plots of the hazard ratios for the primary outcome according to key prespecified baseline subgroups (with the diamond ...)", which is the legend for Figure 2.
- p. 14 Figure 3 legend
Shown are forest plots of the hazard ratios for the primary outcome according to key prespecified baseline subgroups
- p. 13 Figure 2 caption
This represented 42 fewer primary outcomes per 1000 patients treated for 2 years.
- p. 14 Figure 3 caption
Shown are forest plots of the hazard ratios for the primary outcome according to key
Judge's note: The p14 image shows mean eGFR by month and slope estimates, with no hazard ratios or diamond. The legend text (Cox models, tests for heterogeneity) describes the Figure 2 forest plot. Only the final sentence about error bars fits Figure 3.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
27 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Reference or label ESKD or CV death HR "0.73 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.89) (Tables 2 and S5)"; Table S5 has no row for this composite.
- p. 8 Results
the hazard ratio was 0.73 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.89) (Tables 2 and S5)
- p. 52 Table S5
Table S5. Other Secondary and Tertiary Outcomes
Judge's note: Table 2 contains 0.73 (0.59-0.89). Table S5 (supp p52) lists kidney progression components, ESKD or any-cause death, kidney progression or any-cause death, MACE and gout, but not ESKD or CV death. S5 may have been cited for the ESKD component (0.67), so this is minor.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The boundary for the urinary ACR category is labelled "≥30 ≤300" / ">300" in Table 1 and the supplementary figures, but "≥30 <300" / "≥300" in Figure 2 and in the text ('below 300'/'at least 300'), with the same counts (927/937; 1712/1705).
- p. 16 Table 1, urinary ACR categories
≥30 ≤300
- p. 13 Figure 2, urinary ACR subgroups
≥30 <300
- p. 9 Discussion
3192 (48%) participants with a urinary ACR below 300 mg/g
- p. 40 Figure S4, key subgroups
>300
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 1 (p16) prints ≥30 ≤300 and >300. Figure 2 (p13) prints ≥30 <300 and ≥300 with the same denominators. Supplement figures (e.g. p40) use ≤300/>300. The Discussion's 3192 below 300 equals 665+663+927+937. Only the authors can say which boundary was used.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table 2 footnote markers do not match: "All-cause hospitalization¶" has no ¶ footnote, and the † (end-stage kidney disease) and ‡ (Sustained ...) footnotes have no markers in the table body.
- p. 17 Table 2, All-cause hospitalization row
All-cause hospitalization¶
- p. 18 Table 2 footnotes
End-stage kidney disease, defined as start of maintenance dialysis or receipt of a kidney transplant.
- p. 17 Table 2 rows
Kidney disease progression
Judge's note: The p17 upright image shows the markers ¶, §, # and * only. The p18 upright image lists the footnotes †, ‡, §, # and *, with no ¶ footnote. The hospitalization explanation is in the general note.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label SOP9a section 1.3.1 contains a broken cross-reference: "have simple definitions (see Section 0)".
- p. 17 SOP9a section 1.3.1
definitions (see Section 0)
Judge's note: The supp p17 image shows 'Section 0'. No Section 0 exists. The definitions of dialysis and transplant are in sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 (supp text lines 971 and 982), so this appears to be an unresolved field reference.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label In Table S9a, the liver function test differences "0.03%" and "-0.06%" sit under the heading "Relative Difference (SE)". They match absolute differences in proportions (percentage points).
- p. 56 Table S9a, Liver function tests header
Relative Difference (SE)
Judge's note: p56 image checked. 13/3273 minus 12/3265 is 0.03 percentage points, and 2/3273 minus 4/3265 is -0.06. The relative difference for 13 vs 12 would be about +8%.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text says between-group slope differences were larger "in the subgroups of participant with faster rate of annual decline (i.e. patients with diabetes, higher eGFR, or higher baseline urinary ACR)", but in Fig. S7 placebo chronic slopes are -2.73 (diabetes) vs -2.75 (no diabetes), and total slopes -2.91 vs -2.92.
- p. 8 Results, Tertiary and Exploratory Outcomes
faster rate of annual decline (i.e. patients with diabetes, higher eGFR, or higher baseline urinary ACR)
- p. 44 Figure S7, chronic slope, Diabetes rows
-1.05 (0.12) -2.73 (0.12)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Fig S7 (supp p44): placebo decline is essentially identical with and without diabetes. The description holds for eGFR ≥45 (-3.60) and ACR >300 (-4.11), but not for diabetes. The larger difference in diabetes (1.68 vs 1.09) comes from slower decline in the empagliflozin arm.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text states "no significant effect on glycated hemoglobin (Table S9)", while Table S9a reports HbA1c All difference -0.39 (95% CI -0.77, -0.01).
- p. 8 Clinical Measurements and Laboratory Assessments
but no significant effect on glycated hemoglobin (Table S9)
- p. 56 Table S9a, HbA1c All
-0.39 (-0.77, -0.01)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table S9a (supp p56) prints a CI for the overall HbA1c difference whose upper bound is below zero. The authors should say whether 'no significant effect' refers to clinical relevance, to the subgroups by diabetes status, or to another criterion.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording SOP9a 5.1 Ketoacidosis, criterion iii, is truncated: "A blood beta-hydroxybutrate level exceeding 1.5 mmol/L or urine ketones of at least", and no urine ketone threshold is given.
- p. 28 SOP9a section 5.1 Ketoacidosis, criterion iii
or urine ketones of at least
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The supp p28 image shows the sentence ending at 'at least', followed by a blank line. The urine ketone threshold is missing, and only the authors can supply it.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Affiliation reads "Fuwai Hospital, Chinese academy of Medical Sciences"; 'academy' should be capitalised.
- p. 2 Affiliations
Chinese academy of Medical Sciences
Judge's note: Seen in the page 2 crop: lower-case 'academy' in the proper name.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Author degrees printed "Rajat Deo, M.D. M.T.R.," with no separator, whereas other authors use 'M.D./Ph.D.'.
- p. 2 Author list
Rajat Deo, M.D. M.T.R.,
Judge's note: Crop of page 2 shows 'M.D. M.T.R.'. Other dual degrees on the page use a slash, so this is a minor consistency point.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Unmatched closing parenthesis in "patients with an eGFR) less than 30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2" (Introduction, p4) and in Table 1 footnote "not listed in the Table) or not specified".
- p. 4 Introduction, last paragraph
patients with an eGFR) less than 30
- p. 4 Introduction, paragraph 3
patients with an eGFR) less than 30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2
- p. 4 Introduction, last paragraph
patients with an eGFR) less than 30 ml per minute
- p. 16 Table 1 footnote
not listed in the Table) or not specified
Judge's note: Both stray parentheses are visible in the page images (p4 Introduction; p16 Table 1 footnote ‡).
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Discussion (p9) says DAPA-CKD "required participants to have a urinary ACR of 200 mg/g", but the Introduction (p4) describes the same criterion as "a urinary ACR of at least 200 mg/g". The qualifier is missing in the Discussion.
- p. 9 Discussion, paragraph 2
required participants to have a urinary ACR of 200 mg/g
- p. 4 Introduction, paragraph 2
a urinary ACR of at least 200 mg/g
Judge's note: Page 9 image shows 'a urinary ACR of 200 mg/g and an eGFR of 25 to 75'. The page 4 crop shows 'a urinary ACR of at least 200 mg/g'. The intended meaning is clear, so this is cosmetic: add 'at least'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Duplicated word: "The term 'sustained' was defined as either as measured at two consecutive…".
- p. 5 Methods, Outcomes
was defined as either as measured at two consecutive
Judge's note: Page 5 crop shows 'defined as either as measured'; the first 'as' is redundant.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Drug name misspelled: "slower in the empgalfilozin group in all the key subgroups".
- p. 8 Results, Tertiary and Exploratory Outcomes
slower in the empgalfilozin
- p. 8 Tertiary and Exploratory Outcomes
empgalfilozin
- p. 8
slower in the empgalfilozin group in all the key subgroups
Judge's note: Visible on the page 8 image; should be 'empagliflozin'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "serious or symptomatic dehydrations" uses a non-standard plural.
- p. 8 Safety Outcomes
serious or symptomatic dehydrations
Judge's note: Visible on page 8; 'dehydration' is the usual form.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Number agreement: "in the subgroups of participant with faster rate of annual decline".
- p. 8 Tertiary and Exploratory Outcomes
subgroups of participant with faster
Judge's note: Visible on page 8; should be 'participants'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Missing separator: "major cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.93 95% CI 0.76-1.12)".
- p. 8 Tertiary and Exploratory Outcomes
hazard ratio, 0.93 95% CI 0.76-1.12
Judge's note: Visible on page 8. Elsewhere the paper writes 'hazard ratio, x; 95% CI a to b'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The summary sentence repeats a phrase: "In summary, in a broad range of patients with CKD, ... reduced the risk ... from cardiovascular causes in a broad range of patients with CKD at risk of progression."
- p. 9 Discussion, final (summary) paragraph
cardiovascular causes in a broad range of patients with CKD at risk of progression.
Judge's note: Page 9 image confirms that the phrase 'in a broad range of patients with CKD' appears twice in the same sentence and reads as an editing leftover. The same sentence also reads 'with an eGFR 30 ml per minute', which appears to be missing a word.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1, Prior diabetes type, Other/unknown, placebo: "15 (0.0%)". 15/3305 is 0.45%, and the table otherwise uses whole percentages or (<1%).
- p. 15 Table 1, Prior diabetes type, Other/unknown, placebo
(0.0%)
- p. 15 Table 1, Prior diabetes type, Other/unknown, placebo
15 (0.0%)
Judge's note: The p15 image shows '15 (0.0%)', while the empagliflozin cell shows '21 (1%)' and other small cells show '(<1%)'. The value 0.0% is not a correct rounding of 0.45% at one decimal place.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 1 footnote ‡ has an unmatched closing parenthesis: "Other race includes any race not listed in the Table) or not specified".
- p. 16 Table 1 footnote ‡
not listed in the Table) or not specified
Judge's note: The p16 image confirms there is a closing parenthesis with no matching opening one.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 2, Ketoacidosis, placebo: "1 (0.0%)", while the same table prints a single event as "1 (<0.1%)" for serious genital infection.
- p. 17 Table 2, Ketoacidosis, placebo
(0.0%)
Judge's note: The p17 upright image shows both cells. 1/3305 is 0.03%, which rounds to 0.0%, but this breaks the table's own <0.1% convention. Table S7 was not checked.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo SOP9a section 1.3.1 contains a grammatical error: "Assessments of all-cause hospitalization are similarly be based on LCC reports".
- p. 17 SOP9a section 1.3.1
are similarly be based on LCC reports
- p. 17
Assessments of all-cause hospitalization are similarly be based on LCC reports
Judge's note: The supp p17 image confirms the wording. It should read 'are similarly based' or 'will similarly be based'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo In the SOP 5.3 AKI staging table, stage 1 is printed as "≥1-5, <2.0-times historical value(s)". From the stage 2 row (≥2.0) and the upper bound of <2.0, it should read ≥1.5.
- p. 29 SOP9a section 5.3 AKI staging table
≥1-5, <2.0-times historical value(s)
Judge's note: Crop image checked: the stage 1 row reads '≥1-5, <2.0-times'. Stage 2 is '≥2.0, <3.0', so the hyphen is evidently a typo for a decimal point.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The continuation of Table S2 is titled "Other Characteristics of Participants at Recruitment (continued)". The first page is titled "...at Randomization".
- p. 48 Table S2 continuation title
Table S2. Other Characteristics of Participants at Recruitment (continued)
- p. 48 Table S2 (continued) title
Other Characteristics of Participants at Recruitment (continued)
- p. 47 Table S2 title
Other Characteristics of Participants at Randomization
Judge's note: Page images checked. p47 is titled 'at Randomization', and the footnote says values are from the randomization visit. p48 is titled 'at Recruitment (continued)'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The abbreviations footnote of Table S2 (continued) defines GFR twice: "GFR = glomerular filtration rate; ... GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide-1. GFR = glomerular filtration rate."
- p. 48
GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide-1. GFR = glomerular filtration rate.
Judge's note: The p48 image shows GFR defined twice in the same abbreviations line.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table S4 has a footnote marked '*' ("Hospitalization defined as the reason for the adverse event being serious is hospitalization."), but no '*' appears in the title or in any row.
- p. 51 Table S4 footnotes
Hospitalization defined as the reason for the adverse event being serious is hospitalization.
Judge's note: p51 image checked. The only marker in the body is † on 'Cardiac disorder'. The title and all other rows carry no asterisk.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo In Table S7, lower limb amputation at the Foot level is printed as "0 (<0.1%)" in both arms. Elsewhere in the same table, zero counts are printed as (0.0%).
- p. 54 Table S7, Lower limb amputation, Foot
0 (<0.1%)
Judge's note: p54 image checked. The Foot row shows 0 (<0.1%) in both arms, while Hepatic congestion and Alcohol, for example, show 0 (0.0%).
Second check: none (judge only)