Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25982327›Full record

SynthesisNephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association2015

How to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meeting.

Kate Breckenridge, Hillary L Bekker, Elizabeth Gibbons, Sabine N van der Veer, Denise Abbott, Serge Briançon, Ron Cullen, Liliana Garneata, Kitty J Jager, Kjersti Lønning and 11 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for Indigenous Peoples making health decisions: a systematic review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Implementation of an ePRO-based system supporting treatment readiness assessments in lung cancer care: a mixed-methods study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

21 authors.

Kate BreckenridgeUK Renal Registry, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Hillary L BekkerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Elizabeth GibbonsHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sabine N van der VeerEuropean Renal Best Practice, Methods Support Team, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium Health eResearch Centre, Farr Institute for Health Informatics Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Denise AbbottThe National Kidney Federation, Shireoaks, Worksop, UK.
Serge BriançonCHU de Nancy, Epidémiologie et évaluation cliniques, Inserm CIC 1433, Nancy, France.
Ron CullenUK Renal Registry, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Liliana Garneata'Dr Carol Davila' Teaching Hospital of Nephrology, Bucharest, Romania.
Kitty J JagerEuropean Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kjersti LønningSection of Nephrology, Department of Organ Transplantation, Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Wendy MetcalfeRenal Unit, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK The Scottish Renal Registry, Glasgow, UK.
Rachael L MortonSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Headington, UK.
Fliss E M MurtaghDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK.
Karl PrutzSwedish Renal Registry, Jönköping, Sweden Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital of Helsingborg, Helsingborg, Sweden.
Susan RobertsonDumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, Dumfries, UK.
Ivan Rychlik2nd Department of Medicine, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Steffan SchonSwedish Renal Registry, Jönköping, Sweden Diaverum Renal Services Group, Lund, Sweden.
Linda SharpNational Cancer Registry Ireland, Cork, Ireland.
Elodie SpeyerCHU Nancy, Pôle QSP2, Epidémiologie et Evaluation Cliniques, Nancy, France Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, Nancy, France.
Francesca TentoriArbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Fergus J CaskeyUK Renal Registry, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the potential for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and experience measures (PREMs) to enhance understanding of patient experiences and outcomes they have not, to date, been widely incorporated into renal registry datasets. This report summarizes the main points learned from an ERA-EDTA QUEST-funded consensus meeting on how to routinely collect PROMs and PREMs in renal registries in Europe. In preparation for the meeting, we surveyed all European renal registries to establish current or planned efforts to collect PROMs/PREMs. A systematic review of the literature was performed. Publications reporting barriers and/or facilitators to PROMs/PREMs collection by registries were identified and a narrative synthesis undertaken. A group of renal registry representatives, PROMs/PREMs experts and patient representatives then met to (i) share any experience renal registries in Europe have in this area; (ii) establish how patient-reported data might be collected by understanding how registries currently collect routine data and how patient-reported data is collected in other settings; (iii) harmonize the future collection of patient-reported data by renal registries in Europe by agreeing upon preferred instruments and (iv) to identify the barriers to routine collection of patient-reported data in renal registries in Europe. In total, 23 of the 45 European renal registries responded to the survey. Two reported experience in collecting PROMs and three stated that they were actively exploring ways to do so. The systematic review identified 157 potentially relevant articles of which 9 met the inclusion criteria and were analysed for barriers and facilitators to routine PROM/PREM collection. Thirteen themes were identified and mapped to a three-stage framework around establishing the need, setting up and maintaining the routine collection of PROMs/PREMs. At the consensus meeting some PROMs instruments were agreed for routine renal registry collection (the generic SF-12, the disease-specific KDQOL™-36 and EQ-5D-5L to be able to derive quality-adjusted life years), but further work was felt to be needed before recommending PREMs. Routinely collecting PROMs and PREMs in renal registries is important if we are to better understand what matters to patients but it is likely to be challenging; close international collaboration will be beneficial.

Indexed as

Data CollectionPatient Outcome AssessmentRegistriesRenal Replacement TherapyElectronic Health RecordsEuropeHumansPatient SatisfactionQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of LifeRenal InsufficiencySurveys and Questionnairespatient-reported measuresquality indicatorsregistry

Identifiers

PMID25982327
PMCPMC4569391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.