Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26170634›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015

Preferences of patients undergoing hemodialysis - results from a questionnaire-based study with 4,518 patients.

Inger Miriam Janssen, Ansgar Gerhardus, Gero D von Gersdorff, Conrad August Baldamus, Mathias Schaller, Claudia Barth, Fueloep Scheibler

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Inger Miriam JanssenDepartment of Epidemiology and International Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Ansgar GerhardusDepartment for Health Services Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany ; Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Gero D von GersdorffDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Conrad August BaldamusDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Mathias SchallerDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Claudia BarthKfH Kuratorium fuer Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V., NeuIsenburg, Germany.
Fueloep ScheiblerDepartment of Non-Drug Interventions, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Cologne, Germany.
Bielefeld University · DEInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic kidney disease is an increasing health problem worldwide and in its final stage (stage V) can only be treated by renal replacement therapy, mostly hemodialysis. Hemodialysis has a major influence on the everyday life of patients and many patients report dissatisfaction with treatment. Little is known about which aspects of treatment are considered important by hemodialysis patients. The objective of this study was to rate the relative importance of different outcomes for hemodialysis patients and to analyze whether the relative importance differed among subgroups of patients. PATIENTS AND

methodsWithin the framework of a yearly questionnaire which is distributed among patients receiving hemodialysis by the largest hemodialysis provider in Germany, we assessed the relative importance of 23 outcomes as rated on a discrete visual analog scale. Descriptive statistics were used to rank the outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis tests.

resultsQuestionnaires of 4,518 hemodialysis patients were included in the analysis. The three most important outcomes were safety of treatment, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with care. Further important outcomes were hospital stays, accompanying symptoms, hemodialysis duration, and the improvement or preservation of a good emotional state. Age, profession, and education had the strongest influence on relevant differences of preferences for outcomes; no relevant influence of sex or comorbidity was observed.

conclusionOutcomes concerning the delivery or provision of care and aspects influencing quality of life are rated by patients to be at least as important as clinical outcomes. Many of the outcomes judged to be important by the patients are not regularly considered in research, evaluation studies, or quality programs.

Indexed as

chronic diseasepatient-centered outcomespatient-centered researchpreference elicitationrating scale

Identifiers

PMID26170634
PMCPMC4492657
OpenAlexW1723100289

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.