Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27145768›Full record

GuidelineClinical and experimental nephrology2017

Development of quality indicators for care of chronic kidney disease in the primary care setting using electronic health data: a RAND-modified Delphi method.

Shingo Fukuma, Sayaka Shimizu, Kakuya Niihata, Ken-Ei Sada, Motoko Yanagita, Tsuguru Hatta, Masaomi Nangaku, Ritsuko Katafuchi, Yoshiro Fujita, Junji Koizumi and 4 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementPractice GuidelineReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Clinical and experimental nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Framework of Guidelines for Management of CKD in Asia.Kidney international reports · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Quality of primary care provided in community clinics in Japan.Journal of general and family medicine · 2019
    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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Shingo FukumaDepartment of Healthcare Epidemiology, Kyoto University, Yoshida-konoe, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Sayaka ShimizuDepartment of Healthcare Epidemiology, Kyoto University, Yoshida-konoe, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Kakuya NiihataCenter for Innovative Research for Communities and Clinical Excellence (CIRC2LE), Fukushima Medical University, Hikarigaoka 1, Fukushima, Japan.
Ken-Ei SadaDepartment of Nephrology, Rheumatology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama, Japan.
Motoko YanagitaDepartment of Nephrology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Shogoin-kawaramachi 54, Sakyou-ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Tsuguru HattaHatta Medical Clinic, Shugakuin Yakushido 4, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Masaomi NangakuDivision of Nephrology and Endocrinology, University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Ritsuko KatafuchiKidney Unit, National Fukuoka Higashi Medical Center, Chidori 1-1-1, Koga, Fukuoka, Japan.
Yoshiro FujitaDepartment of Nephrology and Rheumatology, Japan Labour Health and Welfare Organization Chubu Rosai Hospital, 1-10-5 Komei, Minato-ku, Nagoya, Japan.
Junji KoizumiInternal Medicine, Suzu General Hospital, 1-1 Nonoe-Yu, Suzu, Ishikawa, Japan.
Shunzo KoizumiShichijo Clinic, 29 Sujaku-kitanokuchi-cho, Shimogyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Kenjiro KimuraJapan Community Health Care Organization (JCHO), Tokyo Takanawa Hospital, Takanawa 3-10-11, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Shunichi FukuharaDepartment of Healthcare Epidemiology, Kyoto University, Yoshida-konoe, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Yugo ShibagakiDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 216-8511, Japan. shibagaki@marianna-u.ac.jp.
Fukushima Medical University · JPKyoto University · JPChubu Rosai Hospital · JPFukuoka Higashi Medical Center · JPOkayama University · JPShizuoka General Hospital · JPSt. Marianna University School of Medicine · JPThe University of Tokyo · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) has recently increased, and maintaining high quality of CKD care is a major factor in preventing end-stage renal disease. Here, we developed novel quality indicators for CKD care based on existing electronic health data.

methodsWe used a modified RAND appropriateness method to develop quality indicators for the care of non-dialysis CKD patients, by combining expert opinion and scientific evidence. A multidisciplinary expert panel comprising six nephrologists, two primary care physicians, one diabetes specialist, and one rheumatologist assessed the appropriateness of potential indicators extracted from evidence-based clinical guidelines, in accordance with predetermined criteria. We developed novel quality indicators through a four-step process: selection of potential indicators, first questionnaire round, face-to-face meeting, and second questionnaire round.

resultsTen expert panel members evaluated 19 potential indicators in the first questionnaire round, of which 7 were modified, 12 deleted, and 4 newly added during subsequent face-to-face meetings, giving a final total of 11 indicators. Median rate of these 11 indicators in the final set was at least 7, and percentages of agreement exceeded 80 % for all but one indicator. All indicators in the final set can be measured using only existing electronic health data, without medical record review, and 9 of 11 are process indicators.

conclusionWe developed 11 quality indicators to assess quality of care for non-dialysis CKD patients. Strengths of the developed indicators are their applicability in a primary care setting, availability in daily practice, and emphasis on modifiable processes.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueElectronic Health RecordsData MiningEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Services ResearchHumansPrimary Health CareProcess Assessment, Health CareQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareRenal Insufficiency, ChronicSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeAdministrative claims dataChronic kidney diseaseQuality indicatorsQuality of careRAND

Identifiers

PMID27145768
OpenAlexW2345974828

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.