ArticlePloS one2019
Novel educational and goal-setting tool to improve knowledge of chronic kidney disease among liver transplant recipients: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survivorship interventions after liver transplantation (LT): A systematic review of interventions targeting physical and psychosocial well-being after LT.Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society · 2026Pooled it
- Pragmatic solutions to enhance self-management skills in solid organ transplant patients: systematic review and thematic analysis.BMC primary care · 2022Pooled it
- Disseminating education to solid organ transplant recipients to promote engagement in physical activity.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Chronic Kidney Disease Awareness and Longitudinal Health Outcomes: Results from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke Study.American journal of nephrology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLiver transplant (LT) recipients have limited understanding of post-transplant chronic kidney disease (CKD) despite an excellent pre-existing framework of transplant care. This pilot study examined the efficacy and feasibility of a tailored educational and goal-setting tool in improving CKD knowledge among LT recipients with early-stage CKD.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, we administered the CKD educational and goal-setting tool to 81 LT recipients between 7/1/2016 and 12/31/2017. We excluded patients with simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation, eGFR<30 ml/min, non-English speaking, on hemodialysis or listed for kidney transplantation. The pre- and post-education knowledge scores were compared using a paired t-test. Linear regression was used to assess the independent predictors of change in knowledge score.
resultsMean age was 56.3 years, 69.1% were males, 85.2% were Caucasians and mean eGFR was 61.2 ± 20.0 ml/min. The CKD educational and goal-setting tool improved the CKD knowledge scores among LT recipients (pre: 71.8 ± 16.6%, post: 83.3 ± 10.4%; p<0.001). In an adjusted model (r2 = 0.75), those with lower pre-education knowledge scores had the most improvement in their post-education knowledge scores (β = -83.2; p<0.001). Two-thirds stated their most important self-management goal and reported motivation to follow this goal. Time spent for the CKD education was approximately 15 minutes.
conclusionsA simple LT-specific patient educational and goal-setting tool effectively improved CKD knowledge. Implementation of this tailored intervention will improve CKD awareness and may promote goal-setting in the target population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.