Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20020312›Full record

Trial reportClinical and experimental nephrology2010

Design and methods of a strategic outcome study for chronic kidney disease: Frontier of Renal Outcome Modifications in Japan.

Kunihiro Yamagata, Hirofumi Makino, Tadao Akizawa, Kunitoshi Iseki, Sadayoshi Itoh, Kenjiro Kimura, Daisuke Koya, Ichiei Narita, Tetsuya Mitarai, Masanobu Miyazaki and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical and experimental nephrology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Education programmes for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Kunihiro YamagataDepartment of Nephrology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8575, Japan. k-yamaga@md.tsukuba.ac.jp
Hirofumi Makino
Tadao Akizawa
Kunitoshi Iseki
Sadayoshi Itoh
Kenjiro Kimura
Daisuke Koya
Ichiei Narita
Tetsuya Mitarai
Masanobu Miyazaki
Yoshiharu Tsubakihara
Tsuyoshi Watanabe
Takashi Wada
Osamu Sakai
Advisory Committee for FROM-J

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe continuous increase in the number of people requiring dialysis is a major clinical and socioeconomical issue in Japan and other countries. This study was designed to encourage chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients to consult a physician, enhance cooperation between nephrologists and general practices, and prevent the progression of kidney disease.

methodsSubjects comprise CKD patients aged between 40 and 74 years consulting a general physician, and patients in CKD stage 3 with proteinuria and diabetes or hypertension. This trial is a stratified open cluster-randomized study with two intervention groups: group A (weak intervention) and group B (strong intervention). We have recruited 49 local medical associations (clusters) in 15 different prefectures, which were classified into four regions (strata) based on the level of increase rate of dialysis patients. The patients in group A clusters were instructed initially to undergo treatment in accordance with the current CKD treatment guide, whereas patients in group B clusters were not only instructed in the same fashion but also received support from an information technology (IT)-based system designed to help achieve the goals of CKD treatment, consultation support centers, and consultations by dietitians visiting the local general practice offices. We assessed the rates of continued consultation, collaboration between general practitioners and nephrologists, and progression of CKD (as expressed by CKD stage).

conclusionThrough this study, filling the evidence-practice gap by facilitating effective communication and supporting general physicians and nephrologists, we will establish a CKD care system and decrease the number of advanced-stage CKD patients.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionFemaleHumansJapanKidney Failure, ChronicLife StyleMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Care TeamPatient Education as TopicReferral and ConsultationRenal DialysisRenal Insufficiency, ChronicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.