Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32830240›Full record

SynthesisNephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association2020

Kidney disease pathways, options and decisions: an environmental scan of international patient decision aids.

Anna E Winterbottom, Andrew Mooney, Lynne Russon, Vicki Hipkiss, Lucy Ziegler, Richard Williams, Jeanette Finderup, Hilary L Bekker

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Decisional Needs of People From Minority Ethnic Groups Around Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A UK Healthcare Professionals' Perspective.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Shared Decision-Making for a Dialysis Modality.Kidney international reports · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Anna E WinterbottomAdult Renal Services, Lincoln Wing, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Andrew MooneyAdult Renal Services, Lincoln Wing, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Lynne RussonSue Ryder Care, Wheatfields Hospice, Leeds, UK.
Vicki HipkissBradford Renal Unit, Horton Wing, St Luke's Hospital, West Yorkshire, UK.
Lucy ZieglerAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, School of Medicine, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Richard WilliamsAdult Renal Services, Lincoln Wing, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Jeanette FinderupDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Hilary L BekkerResCenPI, Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConservative management is recognized as an acceptable treatment for people with worsening chronic kidney disease; however, patients consistently report they lack understanding about their changing disease state and feel unsupported in making shared decisions about future treatment. The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate patient decision aids (PtDAs) developed to support patient-professional shared decision-making between dialysis and conservative management treatment pathways.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of resources accessible in English using environmental scan methods. Data sources included online databases of research publications, repositories for clinical guidelines, research projects and PtDAs, international PtDA expert lists and reference lists from relevant publications. The resource selection was from 56 screened records; 17 PtDAs were included. A data extraction sheet was applied to all eligible resources, eliciting resource characteristics, decision architecture to boost/bias thinking, indicators of quality such as International Standards for Patient Decision Aids Standards checklist and engagement with health services.

resultsPtDAs were developed in five countries; eleven were publically available via the Internet. Treatment options described were dialysis (n = 17), conservative management (n = 9) and transplant (n = 5). Eight resources signposted conservative management as an option rather than an active choice. Ten different labels across 14 resources were used to name 'conservative management'. The readability of the resources was good. Six publications detail decision aid development and/or evaluation research. Using PtDAs improved treatment decision-making by patients. Only resources identified as PtDAs and available in English were included.

conclusionsPtDAs are used by some services to support patients choosing between dialysis options or end-of-life options. PtDAs developed to proactively support people making informed decisions between conservative management and dialysis treatments are likely to enable services to meet current best practice.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHealth ServicesKidney DiseasesPatient ParticipationHumansInternational Agencieschronic kidney diseaseconservative managementdialysiskidney failurepatient decision aidshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID32830240
PMCPMC7716808

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.