Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33871790›Full record

GuidelineEuropean geriatric medicine2021

Design of a consensus-based geriatric assessment tailored for older chronic kidney disease patients: results of a pragmatic approach.

Carlijn G N Voorend, Hanneke Joosten, Noeleen C Berkhout-Byrne, Adry Diepenbroek, Casper F M Franssen, Willem Jan W Bos, Marjolijn Van Buren, Simon P Mooijaart, POLDER investigators

Open access · hybridAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in European geriatric medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Carlijn G N VoorendDepartment of Internal Medicine (Nephrology), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. c.g.n.voorend@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7097-6995
Hanneke JoostenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Section Geriatric Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Noeleen C Berkhout-ByrneDepartment of Internal Medicine (Nephrology), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Adry DiepenbroekDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Casper F M FranssenDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1004-9994
Willem Jan W BosDepartment of Internal Medicine (Nephrology), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5062-2567
Marjolijn Van BurenDepartment of Internal Medicine (Nephrology), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1822-6863
Simon P MooijaartDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3106-3568
POLDER investigators
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLMaastricht University · NLHaga Hospital · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUnidentified cognitive decline and other geriatric impairments are prevalent in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Despite guideline recommendation of geriatric evaluation, routine geriatric assessment is not common in these patients. While high burden of vascular disease and existing pre-dialysis care pathways mandate a tailored geriatric assessment, no consensus exists on which instruments are most suitable in this population to identify geriatric impairments. Therefore, the aim of this study was to propose a geriatric assessment, based on multidisciplinary consensus, to routinely identify major geriatric impairments in older people with advanced CKD.

methodsA pragmatic approach was chosen, which included focus groups, literature review, inventory of current practices, an expert consensus meeting, and pilot testing. In preparation of the consensus meeting, we composed a project team and an expert panel (n = 33), drafted selection criteria for the selection of instruments, and assessed potential instruments for the geriatric assessment.

resultsSelection criteria related to general geriatric domains, clinical relevance, feasibility, and duration of the assessment. The consensus-assessment contains instruments in functional, cognitive, psychological, somatic, patient preferences, nutritional status, and social domains. Administration of (seven) patient questionnaires and (ten) professional-administered instruments, by nurse (practitioners), takes estimated 20 and 40 min, respectively. Results are discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting including at least nephrology and geriatric expertise, informing nephrology treatment decisions, and follow-up interventions among which comprehensive geriatric assessment.

conclusionThis first multidisciplinary consensus on nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment intent to benefit clinical care and enhance research comparability for older patients with advanced CKD.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentNephrologyRenal Insufficiency, ChronicAgedConsensusHumansNutritional StatusAgedChronic kidney diseasesClinical decision-makingConsensus developmentFrailtyGeriatric assessment

Identifiers

PMID33871790
PMCPMC8463384
OpenAlexW3155411412

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.