Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26999730›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Effect of Behavior Modification on Outcome in Early- to Moderate-Stage Chronic Kidney Disease: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.

Kunihiro Yamagata, Hirofumi Makino, Kunitoshi Iseki, Sadayoshi Ito, Kenjiro Kimura, Eiji Kusano, Takanori Shibata, Kimio Tomita, Ichiei Narita, Tomoya Nishino and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Kunihiro YamagataDepartment of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Hirofumi MakinoDepartment of Medicine and Clinical Science, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.
Kunitoshi IsekiDialysis Unit, University Hospital of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan.
Sadayoshi ItoDivision of Nephrology, Endocrinology, and Vascular Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Kenjiro KimuraDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan.
Eiji KusanoDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan.
Takanori ShibataDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Kimio TomitaDepartment of Nephrology, University of Kumamoto, Kumamoto, Japan.
Ichiei NaritaDivision of Clinical Nephrology and Rheumatology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Science, Niigata, Japan.
Tomoya NishinoDivision of Nephrology, Second Department of Internal Medicine, Nagasaki University School of Medicine, Nagasaki, Japan.
Yoshihide FujigakiInternal Medicine 1, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Shizuoka, Japan.
Tetsuya MitaraiDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical School, Saitama, Japan.
Tsuyoshi WatanabeDepartment of Internal Medicine III, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan.
Takashi WadaDivision of Nephrology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical, and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Kanazawa University, Ishikawa, Japan.
Teiji NakamuraJapan Dietitian Association, Tokyo, Japan.
Seiichi MatsuoDepartment of Nephrology, University of Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Study Group for Frontier of Renal Outcome Modifications in Japan (FROM-J)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOwing to recent changes in our understanding of the underlying cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), the importance of lifestyle modification for preventing the progression of kidney dysfunction and complications has become obvious. In addition, effective cooperation between general physicians (GPs) and nephrologists is essential to ensure a better care system for CKD treatment. In this cluster-randomized study, we studied the effect of behavior modification on the outcome of early- to moderate-stage CKD.

designStratified open cluster-randomized trial.

settingA total of 489 GPs belonging to 49 local medical associations (clusters) in Japan.

participantsA total of 2,379 patients (1,195 in group A (standard intervention) and 1,184 in group B (advanced intervention)) aged between 40 and 74 years, who had CKD and were under consultation with GPs.

interventionAll patients were managed in accordance with the current CKD guidelines. The group B clusters received three additional interventions: patients received both educational intervention for lifestyle modification and a CKD status letter, attempting to prevent their withdrawal from treatment, and the group B GPs received data sheets to facilitate reducing the gap between target and practice.

main outcome measureThe primary outcome measures were 1) the non-adherence rate of accepting continuous medical follow-up of the patients, 2) the collaboration rate between GPs and nephrologists, and 3) the progression of CKD.

resultsThe rate of discontinuous clinical visits was significantly lower in group B (16.2% in group A vs. 11.5% in group B, p = 0.01). Significantly higher referral and co-treatment rates were observed in group B (p<0.01). The average eGFR deterioration rate tended to be lower in group B (group A: 2.6±5.8 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, group B: 2.4±5.1 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, p = 0.07). A significant difference in eGFR deterioration rate was observed in subjects with Stage 3 CKD (group A: 2.4±5.9 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, group B: 1.9±4.4 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, p = 0.03).

conclusionOur care system achieved behavior modification of CKD patients, namely, significantly lower discontinuous clinical visits, and behavior modification of both GPs and nephrologists, namely significantly higher referral and co-treatment rates, resulting in the retardation of CKD progression, especially in patients with proteinuric Stage 3 CKD.

trial registrationThe University Hospital Medical Information Network clinical trials registry UMIN000001159.

Indexed as

BehaviorCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansKidney Function TestsMaleMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceRenal Insufficiency, ChronicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26999730
PMCPMC4801411

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.