Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25330169›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2014

Effect of information and telephone-guided access to community support for people with chronic kidney disease: randomised controlled trial.

Tom Blakeman, Christian Blickem, Anne Kennedy, David Reeves, Peter Bower, Hannah Gaffney, Caroline Gardner, Victoria Lee, Praksha Jariwala, Shoba Dawson and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. eHealth interventions for people with chronic kidney disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

17 authors.

Tom BlakemanNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Christian BlickemNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Anne KennedyNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, United Kingdom.
David ReevesNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Peter BowerNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Hannah GaffneyNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Caroline GardnerNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Victoria LeeNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Praksha JariwalaNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Shoba DawsonNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Rahena MossabirNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Helen BrooksNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Gerry RichardsonCentre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, United Kingdom.
Eldon SpackmanCentre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, United Kingdom.
Ivaylo VassilevNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Carolyn Chew-GrahamPrimary Care & Health Services, University of Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Anne RogersNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health WMCLAHRC-2014-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation of self-management support in traditional primary care settings has proved difficult, encouraging the development of alternative models which actively link to community resources. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common condition usually diagnosed in the presence of other co-morbidities. This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness of an intervention to provide information and telephone-guided access to community support versus usual care for patients with stage 3 CKD. METHODS AND

findingsIn a pragmatic, two-arm, patient level randomised controlled trial 436 patients with a diagnosis of stage 3 CKD were recruited from 24 general practices in Greater Manchester. Patients were randomised to intervention (215) or usual care (221). Primary outcome measures were health related quality of life (EQ-5D health questionnaire), blood pressure control, and positive and active engagement in life (heiQ) at 6 months. At 6 months, mean health related quality of life was significantly higher for the intervention group (adjusted mean difference = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.08) and blood pressure was controlled for a significantly greater proportion of patients in the intervention group (adjusted odds-ratio = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.25, 2.72). Patients did not differ significantly in positive and active engagement in life. The intervention group reported a reduction in costs compared with control.

conclusionsAn intervention to provide tailored information and telephone-guided access to community resources was associated with modest but significant improvements in health related quality of life and better maintenance of blood pressure control for patients with stage 3 CKD compared with usual care. However, further research is required to identify the mechanisms of action of the intervention.

trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN45433299.

Indexed as

Renal Insufficiency, ChronicSocial SupportTelephoneAgedCommunity Health ServicesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleQuality of LifeSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25330169
PMCPMC4199782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.